HEMAPRAVA RAY Vs. NAYANA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals which arise from two separate orders passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 2/2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and Misc. Case No. 3/2001 under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. arising out of Title Suit No. 280 of 2000 have been heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff. She has filed the suit for declaration of her title and for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendant -respondents. It is stated in the plaint that three separate agreements were executed by respondent No. 4 Bijaya Kumar Rout in favour of respondents 1 to 3 for sale of different portions of the suit land. Respondents 1 to 3 filed three separate suits against respondent No. 4 and in the said suits, there was a compromise - within a month from the date of filing of such suits whereunder defendant No. 4 agreed to execute sale deeds within a month from the date of the decree. It appears that since defendant -respondent No. 4 did not execute the sale deed pursuant to the decree for specific performance of contract, respondents 1 to 3 filed three different execution cases and got the sale deeds executed in their names through Court - After such registration being effected, they again executed a deed of conveyance in favour of respondent No. 5, who is admittedly the wife of respondent No. 4. It is submitted by the plaintiff that all these transactions had taken place only to defeat the plaintiffs right who was and has been the owner of the property. Therefore, she had filed the applications praying for injunction as well as for appointment of receiver, but unfortunately her prayer was turned down by the Court below.

(3.) MR . P. K. Mohanti, learned Advocate appearing for defendant -respondent No. 5 has submitted that respondent No. 4 was the original owner of the property who had, therefore, entered into agreements with respondents 1 to 3, but somehow or other he could not execute the sale deed in time. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 filed separate suits which have been rightly decreed by the trial Court on compromise. After respondents 1 to 3 obtained sale deeds from the Court and as such became owners of the property, they sold the property in favour of respondents No. 5. Respondent No. 5 after having purchased the suit property remained in possession in her own right. After such purchase, respondent No. 5 also got her same mutated in the Record -of -Rights.