MITI BEWA Vs. DAITARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the confirming decisions of the courts below, arising out of a suit for declaration of title on declaration that defendant No. 1 had no title to the property and for confirmation of possession and injunction and for setting aside the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 6.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that she was the heir of the property left by her husband, her son having had a premature death. Defendant No. 1 has married her eldest daughter. After the death of her son, defendant No. 1, her son-in-law came to live in her house and looked after her. Some time later, he asked her to execute a power-of-attorney for facility of management of her property. In good faith, she executed a document in favour of defendant No. 1. She continued to enjoy and possess the property left by her husband till in 1975 her possession was disturbed and on enquiry she learned that on the pretext of the power-of-attorney a sale deed was taken from her on 20-2-1961 and defendant No. 1 later on alienated property in favour of defendant No. 1 and a sale deed was obtained by defendant No. 6. She alleged that she had no idea that a sale deed was taken because she was throughout in possession.

(3.) Defendant No. 9 was a co-sharer of the plaintiff's husband. He and defendant No. 1 filed joint written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 stated that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in his favour was a sham document and he did not acquire any right, title or interest. Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 filed a joint written statement stating that defendant No. 1 had joined hands with the plaintiff with a view to depriving them of their property. Plaintiff knowingly executed the sale deed which was acted upon and various purchases were made by them from defendant No. 1 and so on the title was unimpeachable and they were in possession.