UMAKANTA JENA Vs. RAGHUNATH ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial question for which this Regular Second Appeal has been admitted against the confirming judgment is whether the appellate Court is justified in rejecting the petition under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 without dealing with the same? In course of hearing, another substantial question was raised at the Bar. Whether the burden of proof of due execution of a registered sale deed allegedly executed by an old, illiterate and Paradanasini lady lies on the party who relies on it or it lies on the party, who challenges the same?

(2.) CONTESTING defendants have preferred the 2nd appeal against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in Title Appeal No.72 of 1992, wherein, the learned District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.220/87 -I of the Court of Addl. Munsif, Bhadrak.

(3.) THE defendants filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendants further plead that Rajani Dei is an old, illiterate and Paradanasini lady. She has no knowledge regarding the landed property or its connected documents. It is further pleaded that the defendant no.1 was never in need of money and she has not received any consideration amount from the plaintiff. The defendants further plead that the plaintiff being a cunning and shrewd man managed to get the sale deed executed by he defendant no.1 without reading over and explaining her the contents of the deed. The defendants further plead that defendant no.2 was staying at Cuttack and his brother was at Calcutta at the time of the execution of the deed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the signatures of Umakanta Jena on the sale deed was forged signatures. They further plead that the plaintiff never possessed the suit land and they are in possession of the same. The defendants further averred in the written statement that the defendant no.1 cancelled the registered sale dated 18.02.1987 on 12.03.1987 by executing a document, which was scribed by one Nityananda Palita. Defendants claim that the suit land was valued Rs.15,000/ - at the time of alleged sale and the plaintiff got the sale deed executed from defendant no.1 in the guise of taking her for medical treatment. The defendants further averred that the plaintiff obtained the thumb impression of the defendant no.1 on four blank stamp papers. The defendants further plead that the plaintiff took back a sum of Rs.1,000/ - which he had given to defendant no.1 in presence of the Sub -Registrar, in the verandha of Sub -Registrars office, and the plaintiff also obtained the ticket from defendant no.1 without paying any amount to her. Defendants plead that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit should be dismissed.