BHRAMAR PRADHAN Vs. GOVINDA MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is by the plaintiff against a reversing Decree. The suit was for declaration of title and for confirmation or, in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit lands on adjudication that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 on 24-3-67 is not binding on the plaintiff and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

(2.) The case pleaded on the plaint is that the plaintiff is the son of late Ghana Pradhan, the brother of defendant No. 2 Baban Pradhan, and that his father died when he was only two years old. His mother Hema Bewa courted a remarriage. At; the time of her remarriage, Hema Bewa had given some ornaments and a cash of Rs. 200/-to defendant No. 2 for the upkeep of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 purchased the suit lands by a sale deed dated 10-61959 (Ext. A) in the name of the plaintiff with the help of the ornaments and cash given by Hema Bewa. Subsequently defendant No. 2 in order to make unlawful gain executed a sale deed in respect of the suit lands in favour of defendant No. 1 on 24-3-1967 falsely describing himself as the father of the plaintiff (vide Ext. B). The sale was never for the benefit of the plaintiff. The sale deed was executed without obtaining permission of the District Judge in contravention of the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 did not enter appearance in the suit which proceeded ex parte against him. Defendant No. 1 who was the sole contestant in the suit contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Ghana Pradhan but he is the son of defendant No. 2 and he lives in a joint family with him. Defendant No. 2 being the father of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property with his own funds benami in the name of the plaintiff who was then a minor. Defendant No. 2 was the real owner of the suit lands and after abolition of the intermediary interest the suit lands were settled with him. He sold the suit lands to defendant No. 1 to meet the legal necessity of the family on receipt of a consideration of Rs. l,000/_ and executed the sale deed on 24-3-1967 and delivered possession of the same. Defendant No. 2 being a veteran litigant had brought a suit through the plaintiff to get the sale deed set aside and it was dismissed. He cut and carried away the paddy crops raised by defendant No. 1 on the suit land for which a criminal case is pending against him. In order to escape from the criminal liability defendant No. 2 has brought the present suit through the plaintiff.