ARJUN CHANDRA BERA Vs. BIJAY KRISHNA BERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeals directed against the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Tamluk in Title Appeal No. 46 of 1988 affirming those dated April 9, 1998 passed by the learned Munsif, Third Court at Tamluk in Title Suit No. 215 of 1985.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant instituted Title suit No. 215 of 1985 for declaration of his title upon, further, declaration that the kobala dated June 28, 1985 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 was fabricated, fraudulent, antedated, illegal, invalid and without consideration. The plaintiff, also, prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is contended in the plaint that the suit properties originally belonged to Bishnupada Bera, the defendant No. 2. The said Bishnupada Bera on August 12, 1985 conveyed the suit properties at a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only; the sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 at the time of writing of the Deed and the balance sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only was paid before the Sub-Registrar concerned, who made an endorsement in this respect on the Deed. However, on Ashwin 27, 1392 B.S. the defendant No.1 denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit lands. The plaintiff, thereafter, made enquiries and obtained a certified copy of the Deed dated August 26, 1985, which was however, registered on September 30, 1985. It appeared from the said certified copy of the said Deed that fraudulently the date of execution of the Deed was entered as Ashwar 20, 1392 B.S. corresponding to June 28, 1985 in order to defraud the plaintiff. As the defendant No. 2 transferred his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property before execution of the Deed on September 30, 1985 by virtue of the Deed dated August 12, 1985 in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants No. 1 acquired no title over the suit property by virtue of the said antedated, collusive and fraudulent Deed.

(3.) Only the defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been contended that the defendant No. 2 sold the suit property on July 5, 1985, corresponding to Ashwar 20, 1392 B.S., at a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only, but the document was registered subsequently as the defendant No. 2 took some time for presenting the document for registration It is contended that the Deed dated August 12, 1985 standing in name of the plaintiff was not binding on the said defendant No.1, and as such the plaintiff purchased the suit properties after purchase by the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff did not acquire any title whatsoever.