PUSHPABALA MAJHI Vs. SARAT CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to the present appeal lie within a narrow compass. The only persons who are interested in this appeal are Pushpabala Majhi, daughter and heir of Soudamini Deyee, the original Plaintiff of the trial court, and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of this appeal, Sarat Chandra Das and Jatindra Nath Das, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, of the trial court. Soudamini instituted the suit in the trial court for a declaration that a certain kobala purporting to have been executed by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 of the trial court in favour of Defendant No. 1 on May 18, 1943, is a void and fraudulent document, and it has not affected her title to the disputed properties which she purchased from Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on May 30, 1943. Certain prayers were also made which are ancillary to the main prayer. Prayer gha of the plaint shows that an alternative relief was asked for against Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 of the trial court if they created any hindrance in the way of Plaintiff's success.

(2.) The main contestant in the trial court was Defendant No. I who alleged that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had sold the disputed property to his father for valuable consideration before the sale was affected in favour of Soudamini. This Defendant further alleged that his father had purchased the property in his benami.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statements in the trial court contending that they had never executed any kobala in favour of Defendant No. 1's father.