DHOBANI DEI Vs. LINGARAJ BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal against a reversing judgment of the learned Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in a suit brought by her for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) ACCORDING to her, the property in dispute belonged to Mayadhar, her father. He had become separate from his cosharers for some years before his death. Mayadhar and his wife died of cholera one after the other and the plaintiff was a minor child with nobody to look after her. The people in the village prepared an inventory of the movable assets left by Mayadhar and ultimately she was put under the care of defendant No. 3 who happened to be her maternal uncle. He and his mother came over to reside in the house of Mayadhar and look after the minor plaintiff. This defendant No. 3 while being in management of the properties of the plaintiff alienated the disputed property under a sale deed (Ext. A) dated 4-5-1945 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 240/-. Defendant No. 3 acted as the guardian of the plaintiff for the purposes of the said sale. The other defendants are alienees from defendants 1 and 2 in respect of a part of the disputed property. The plaintiff after attaining majority but within the period of limitation has come with the suit on the allegation that the alienation is bad in law, there was no legal necessity for the sale, and defendant No. 3 has illegally transferred the property of the plaintiff.

(3.) ON such conclusions the judgment of the lower appellate court is bound to be vacated. I would accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the judgment of the lower appellate court and restore that of the trial court. In the facts of this case, I would direct both parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.