The plaintiffs respondents claimed on the strength of the pedigree which they set up that they were sons of the half sister of Satyanand and therefore came before the agnates.
The relevant pedigree which the appellant set up was 1 1942 L.R. 69 I.A. I45.
Exhibit I was filed on November 5, 1917.
Ultimately, the suit was decreed on August 31, 1918, on the finding that the alienation by Haripriya was without legal necessity and did number bind the reversion after her death.
It was further alleged that the plaintiffs of that suit had numberlegal right over the share in dispute, and this was followed by a pedigree given in para.
14 of 1946, arising out of the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1946, of the Court of Subordinate Judge at Sambalpur in Title Suit No.
The companytesting defendants challenged the companyrectness of the pedigree alleged by the plaintiffs respondents and their main case was that Ahalya and Malabati were not the daughters of Lokenath Parichha but were daughters of Baidyanath Misra, father of Haripriya.
The suit was filed on August 27, 1917.
IV of the petition.
That application was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge by the following order In a suit like the present, it is number necessary 1 1898 I.L.R. 26 Cal.
The petition is, therefore, rejected.
C. Issacs and R. Patnaik, for the respondents.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 9, 1951, of the Orissa High Court in Appeal from Original decree No.
31 of 1917 numberdispute arose as to the alleged relation between Lokenath on one side and Ahalya, Brindabati and Malabati on the other.
K. Jha, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
Baidyanath Misra Haripriya Bisseswar AliaJ Malabati died on Misra Laksh Pati Mandhata 6 4 1942 Dayasagar Satyanand Sushila P. W. 3 died in 1903 Dasarathi Baikuntha Plff.
3 Nimai Lakshmi Plff.1 narayan.
The suit was companytested by some of the defendants who were agnates of Lokenath Paricha and of whom the present appellant was one.
that all the reversioners should be made parties.
1, a petition dated November 2, 1917, which Satyabadi on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers Baikunth Pati and Dasarath Pati had filed in Suit No.
The High Court relied on Ex.
This petition Ex.
The learned Judges of the High Court took the view that in Suit No.
1 was put up on November 27, 1917, and the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the petition by the following order The petition of Satyabadi Pati and others was put up in the presence of the plaintiffs pleader.
Mandhata Misra.
31 of 1917 this petition companytained a pedigree which showed that Ahalya, Brindabati, and Malabati were daughters of Lokenath Parichha by his first wife and Satyabadi, Baikunth and Dasarath were the sons of Ahalya.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Orissa is from the judgment and decree of the said High Court dated March 9, 1951, by which it substantially affirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in Title Suit No.
He objects to the same.
16 of 1944.
1 Janardan Devendra Deft.
April 27.
Raghumani.
There was an appeal to the High Court, and it affirmed the finding Of the learned Subordinate Judge.
The claim of the plaintiffs, number respondents before us, was founded on the following pedigree Sankarsan Balaram Bhubana Baidyanath Raghunath Purushottam Satyabhama Lokanath Haripriya alias Srihari died 1942 2nd wife Satyananda died 1902 Natabar Deft.
6 Must.
On a companysideration of that evidence the learned Subordinate Judge held that they were the sons of the daughters of Lokenath Parichha and on that finding the suit was decreed.
206 of 1954.
This suit was numbered Title Suit 16 of 1944 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur.
16 of 1944 except for a modification of the decree for damages awarded by the latter.
So I reject the petition.
Satyabadi Dasarath Baikuntha Nimai Lakshminarayanm dead Deft.8 Plaintiff3 Plaintiff1 Plaintiff2 given in adoption in another family .
In that petition Satyabadi alleged The applicants are the legal claimants to inherit the properties left by Lokenath the applicants therefore beg that they may kindly be made company defendants .
