PADMABATI DEI Vs. SANJULATA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 and/for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the suit land.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 is that both the plaintiffs are brother and sister and are also minors represented by their mother guardian Sarojini Behera. Defendant No. 2 is their father. It is the case of the plaintiff respondents that the suit land extending to an area of Ac. 0.142 1/2 decimals to the south of plot No. 173 in Khata No. 91, Ac. 0.021 decimals 4 Kadis to the west, Ac. 0.009 decimals 7 kadis at Markandeswar Sahi in the district of Puri had been purchased in the name of the plaintiffs with the money given by their maternal grand father as their father defendant No. 2 got addicted to drugs and did not look after them as well as their mother. The said lands even though were purchased in the name of minor plaintiffs with the money given by their maternal grand father, defendant No. 2 sold the lands to defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/ without any legal necessity and therefore the suit was brought for cancellation of the said sale deed and declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also for eviction of defendant No. 1 from the suit lands. Defendant No. 2, father of the plaintiffs, did not contest the suit and purchaser defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied the plaint allegations. A specific plea was raised by defendant No. 1 stating that no permission from the District Judge having been obtained for filing the suit against father, the suit was not maintainable. It was also case of the defendant No. 1 that the suit land had been purchased by the father guardian of the plaintiffs from out of his own funds and therefore mother guardian cannot file suit against father guardian. It was also contended in the written statement that the disputed land having been purchased from out of the income of the defendant No. 2 though in the name of minors. It was benami transaction and the defendant No. 2 had all the legal authority to sell the same for any purpose and accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE appeal carried by the plaintiffs was allowed on the following findings :