LAWS(ORI)-2022-6-95

RATNAKAR PRADHAN Vs. ARJUNA CH. BEHERA

Decided On June 20, 2022
RATNAKAR PRADHAN Appellant
V/S
Arjuna Ch. Behera Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), have assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 24/1/1997 and 7/2/1997 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak in S.J. Appeal No.48 of 1990.

(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 Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case is that she is an ignorant and pardanashin widow and her husband died 33 years prior to institution of the suit. The Defendant No.1 is the son of Defendant No.2, who happens to be the husband's brother of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.3 is the son of brother of the Plaintiff. Since the husband of the Plaintiff died only after three months of her marriage, she was fully depending upon Defendant No.2 for all her household affairs as well as all the affairs including the protection of her landed properties. She was reposing full faith and confidence upon Defendant No.2 in every matter and they were staying nearby. About 15 years prior to the institution of the suit, the Defendant No.2 requested the Plaintiff to execute a Power of Attorney in his favour for proper management of her landed properties. So, on good faith, she came to the Office of Sub-Registrar, Soro and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.2, which was registered. She had then no discussion with anybody. It is the Defendant No.2, who obtained her LTIs on some papers and after completion of the work, they all came back. It was all along within the knowledge and impression of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.2 had taken those LTIs for the purpose of execution of Power of Attorney in his favour which she in fact had executed. It is her case that she continued to possess the house and the property as usual. About eight years prior to the institution of the suit, the Defendant No.2 proposed to construct the house on the homestead of Plaintiff to which she did not agree and then the Defendants 1 and 2 threatened her and told that they would construct a house over that homestead at any cost when they also disclosed that she had already transferred these properties in their favour. The Plaintiff thus being astonished to hear about the sale as claimed, made necessary enquiry and came to know that one deed of gift had been obtained from her in respect of the Schedule-Ka properties in favour of Defendant No.1. So, she cancelled the deed of gift. After that, when she went to deposit the rent for the said land, she was surprised to know that the land had been mutated in favour of Defendant No.1. She made an application for review of the order of the Tahasildar granting the mutation, but her prayer was rejected. Then it was ascertained that her 'Kala' and 'Jala' lands had been transferred in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and those were by two others sale deeds; one in favour of Defendant No.2 and the other one in favour of Defendant No.3, which concern with the properties described in Schedule-Kha and Ga of the plaint. She thus having come to know that the Defendants have connived together and managed to obtain all these deeds (one gift deed and two sale deeds) from her, filed the suit.