HIRAMANI SWAIN Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing decision. The suit is for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of 'Kha' Schedule property. It is not disputed that 'Kha' Schedule property is a part of 'Ka' Schedule property which originally belonged to one Gayaram Bhanj, who had two wives Khiramani and Bilasini. The plaintiff is the only daughter of Gayaram born through Khiramani. After the death of Gayaram, the two widows succeeded to the the property. Subsequently, the plain plaintiff's mother had executed a deed of gift in respect of her half share of the property in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the step mother also donated her share by oral gift and the plaintiff thus became the owner of the entire 'Ka' Schedule property. On 14 6 1945, Sidheswar Senapati, the predecessor in interest of defendants 1 to 6, managed to obtain a registered sale deed from Bilasini even though the contents of the document had not been read over and explained to her. This was in respect of half share of Bilasini. Subsequently, the aforesaid Sidheswar managed to obtain another document from the plaintiff on 31 3 1952. It is claimed that Bilasini was an illiterate person and similarly the plaintiff was also an illiterate Paradanasin lady and the documents had been obtained fradulently without explaining the contents thereof. The plaintiff came to know about such transaction only in 1977 forcing her to file the suit thereafter.

(2.) THE defendants in their written statement denied the plaint allegations. It was stated that both the sale deeds had been validly executed. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had earlier filed O. S. No. 231 of 1951 I for declaration that the sale deed by Bilasini was null and void. There was an amicable settlement outside the Court and in view of suchamicable settlement, Sidheswar executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac.1.69 1/2 decimals of land and the plaintiff executed a sale deed for Rs.500/ in respect of Ac.1.77 decimals of land. It was also claimed that the aforesaid suit was subsequently dismissed for default and in view of the provisions contained in Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C., the subsequent suit is not maintainable.

(3.) IN appeal, the lower appellate court has reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit on the following findings :