GANESH HOTA Vs. PURUSHOTTAM MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by defendants 2 and 3 were heard together and they are governed by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit, T. S. No. 1112/52, for partition of 12 Bharanams of land which he purchased from one Anta Misra and his brothers by a registered sale-deed, Ext. 1, on April 24, 1951. The disputed lands according to the plaintiffs were purchased by him under three transactions. First of all, Raghunath Purohit, the brother of Lingaraj Purohit, who are the sons of one Mahadeb Purohit sold five Bharanams of land to Maheshwar Misra, the father of Ananta Misra by a registered sale deed (Ex. 17), dated June 26, 1922. Lingaraj had a son by the first wife named Basudeb who is defendant No. 1. By his second wife he had two sons Ganesh and Jagannath who are defendants 2 and

(3.) Thereafter Basudeb (defendant 1), sold three Bharanams of land on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 to Ananta Misra by another sale deed (Ex. 18) dated June 22, 1925. Ananta Misra by way of a Jeravoti leasa (Ex. 4(c)) dated November 23, 1929, took four Bharanams of land from the Zamindar of Dharakote. Thus Ananta Misra and his brothers came to possess 12 bharanams of land which they sold to the plaintiff as stated above. Plaintiffs* further case was that the Raja of Dharakote made a gift of ten Bharanams of land by a deed of gift (Ex. 1) dated September 20, 1899, in the name of Lingaraj; out of which Raghunath, his younger brother, sold his half share (five Bharanams) to Maheswar Misra. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of these 12 Bharanams of land. 3. Defendant No. 1 Basudeb only filed a written statement supporting the case of defendants 2 and 3, but did not contest the suit. He merely added that he executed the sale deed under fraud and misrepresentation. The defence of defendants 2 and 3 in essence was that the entire land of 10 Bharanams was granted by the Zamindar of Dharakote under Ex. L to Lingaraj which became his personal property. His younger brother, Raghunath had no right to sell five Bharanams out of it to the father of Anant Misra. Their further defence was that after the death of Lingaraj, Basu-deo never acted as their guardian since their mother was living. Basudev had no rights whatsoever to transfer the. lands in question on their behalf. They claimed to be in possession of the entire extent of land and denied the possession of the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title.