LAWS(CHH)-2016-7-15

MANISHA SHARMA W/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Vs. LEELA RAM MEGHWANI S/O LATE H.M. MEGHWANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GALI

Decided On July 22, 2016
Manisha Sharma W/O Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 40 Years Appellant
V/S
Leela Ram Meghwani S/O Late H.M. Meghwani, Aged About 50 Years, R/O Gali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gajpati numbered as Title appeal No. 14 of 1998. Smt. Pattila Chinnamma @ Nancharamma as the original plaintiff had filed the suit i.e., T.S. No. 62 of 1993 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Parlakhemundi for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit house and for recovery of possession of the same from defendant no. 1 and 2 who are the respondent no. 1 and 2 in this second appeal and out of whom, the respondent no. 2 alone was the appellant before the first appellate court. It may be stated here that during pendency of the suit, original plaintiff having died, her daughter came to be substituted as plaintiff no. 1(a) and she has filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby the suit stood dismissed in reversal to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Case of the plaintiff is that, she was the owner in possession of the suit house. Her eldest son having died, the daughter-in-law with her children left the house. The second son also died and the third son was working at Parlakhemundi when the daughter being given in marriage, the plaintiff was residing with the second daughter-in-law and her children in the suit house. Reposing confidence on them, she executed a registered deed of settlement in the year 1984 conferring absolute right over the suit house in favour of the children of defendant no. 2 besides the right of enjoyment of the same being also given to the defendant no. 2. Subsequently the defendant no. 2 and her children went away with defendant no. 1 leaving the plaintiff uncared for and so anybody remained to look after the plaintiff. The daughter who has come up for substitution as plaintiff no. 1(a) and her son who was then alive came to her rescue. The plaintiff then in the year 1989 cancelled the said registered deed of the year 1984 by a registered document and as the plaintiff no. 1(a) and her son were taking all her care, she again executed another Willnama in the year 1991 bequeathing said property in their favour. It is alleged that sometime in the month of April 1992, the defendant no. 1 and 2 came and forcibly evicted the plaintiff from the suit house despite protest and they did not leave the possession of the same. So, the suit was filed.