KETAKI SAHU Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) being the daughters of Subarna who was the sole owner of the land in dispute filed the suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed executed by Subarna on April 5, 1972 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the original defendant No. 1 (now represented through legal representatives-appellants) (for short the appellant) was void and not binding on them and to declare their right, title and interest over the suit land. Prayer for eviction, of the appellant as well as possession was also made. The land in question is homestead which is slightly more than 2/3rd of an acre. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant taking advantage of the old age of Subarna, got sale deed executed without consideration by playing a fraud. Appellant denied the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically denied that the sale deed was got executed by the original defendant fraudulently. Appellants case was that to maintain herself and for going on pilgrimage, Subarna knowingly sold the land to the appellant after receiving Rs. 1,000/- as consideration under a registered sale deed.

(2.) The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues regarding due execution of the sale deed, passing of the consideration and as to whether the suit was filed within limitation. Appellant produced the scribe and the two attesting witnesses of the sale deed as DW 1 to DW 3. Trial Court disbelieved the scribe and the two attesting witnesses on the ground that their testimony was inconsistent and contradictory to each other on certain particulars. It was also held that the contents of the sale deed were not read over to the vendee. The payment of the entire consideration was also held not to be proved.

(3.) After deciding these issues in favour of the respondents, trial Court took up the issue regarding limitation. Appellant was found to be in possession from the date of the execution of the sale deed. Contention of the respondents that the sale was void ab initio was not accepted. It was held to be voidable. It was found that the sale was valid unless it was adjudged void. Suit was filed in the year 1977. Since the suit was filed beyond three years from the date of possession the same was held to be beyond limitation and the suit was dismissed being barred by time.