JUDHISTIR NAIK Vs. GOLEKHA CHANDRA LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming decision. There is no dispute that the disputed property originally belonged to one Rodani Bewa. The plaintiffs claim that plaintiff No. 2, father of plaintiff No. 1 and the father of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 7 had purchased the disputed property from Rodani Bewa by a registered sale deed dated 9 -4 -1949. Subsequently, the father of plaintiff No. 1 transferred his one -third interest in favour of plaintiff No. 1 on 17 -8 -1962 and plaintiff No. 1 thus possessed the disputed property along with plaintiff No. 2 and the father of plaintiffs 3 to 7, In the year 1974, the defendants threatened to dispossess them on the ground that they had purchased the property from Rodani Bewa on 8 -4 -1969. It is claimed that the subsequent sale deed is nor binding on the plaintiffs. It is further claimed that the plaintiffs had given their sale deed to the Amin during the settlement proceeding and the sale deed was lost.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 15, 17 and 18 filed a common written statement denying the plaint allegations. It was stated by them that Rodani Bewa was living with her sister's son, Madan Naik, in the disputed property and there was no necessity to sell the disputed property to the plaintiffs in the year 1949. It was further pleaded that taking advantage of the temporary quarrel between Rodani Bewa and her nephew Madan, the father of plaintiff No. 1 obtained a fraudulent sale deed and subsequently, on the intervention of Bhadralogs, the original sale deed Was returned by the father of plaintiff No. 1 to Rodani with an endorsement and she continued to remain in possession, In 1949, there was a proceeding under section 145, Code of CriminalProcedure, wherein Madan and some other villagers were members of first party and the purchasers under the sale deed dated 9 -4 -1949 and others were arrayed as second party. The possession of the first party members was confirmed by order dated 2 -3 -1950. After the death of Madan, Rodani, who suffered from cancer, being helpless transferred the disputed property in favour of the defendants. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs and their predecessors -in -interest having not filed the suit for recovery of possession within three years from the date of the order passed under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, their title, if any, stood extinguished by the law of limitation.

(3.) THE trial court held that the sale deed (Ext. -1) executed by Rodani in favour of the plaintiffs and their predecessors -in -interest was never acted upon and the plaintiffs and their predecessors -in -interest did not take possession of the disputed property. It was also found that no suit for declaration of right, title and recovery of possession having been filed within three years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors -in -interest had lost right, title and interest and the present suit is barred by the law of limitation. The aforesaid finding having been confirmed in appeal, the present Second Appeal has been filed.