PANCHANAN PANDA Vs. RAMANATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 17/1/1997 and 28/1/1997 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in S.J. Appeal No.46 of 1992. By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondents 1 to 6 under Sec. 96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby the judgment and decree dtd. 11/8/1992 and 26/8/1992 respectively passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore in O.S. No.5/35 of 1987-I/1981 have been set aside and these Appellants (Plaintiffs) have been non-suited.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

(3.) It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Srinibas Panda and his two brothers are the members of the joint family. Srinibas died in the year 1937 when all the members of the family were in joint mess and estate. He died leaving behind his widow Rebati, who died in the year 1977. Srinibas had no issue. His other brother Kandarpa died in the year 1953 and Chintamani, who is another brother of Srinibas, being alive, is Plaintiff No.2 in the suit. It is stated that sometime in the year 1953, Rebati filed a suit against Kandarpa and Chintamani claiming maintenance and it stood numbered as O.S. No.34/26 of 1955-53. The suit was decreed and in execution of the same, she got Ac.10.18 decimals of land in the Court auction. She sold the said properties to different persons. The property measuring Ac.1.68 decimals have been sold to Kalyani Panda and Mrutyunjaya Panda, who in turn, sold the same to Defendant No.2, Defendant No.6 and father of Defendant No.7 (ka) and Defendant No.8 by registered sale deeds. Since she had no right and title over those properties, it is said that those sales are invalid and those are also void not only for being without consideration but also for having been obtained fraudulently. It is also stated that the Defendants influenced the Settlement Authorities and got the suit properties recorded in their names on the basis of fake and illegal sale deeds. The Plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit claiming the right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties with alternative relief that in case of dispossession, they be restored with the possession.