KACHERA PRADHAN Vs. SMT. SUSILA SUNDARI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 32/20 of 1979-77-I of the Court of Munsif, Banpur are the appellants in this appeal against a reversing judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Khurda in Title Appeal No. 14/12 of 1980. The sole respondent as plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property against the present appellants. She also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in brief is that the suit land originally belonged to Kasinath Subudhi and his sons and in an amicable partition the same fell to the share of Somanath Subudhi and Suryakanti Subudhi of the same family. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from the aforesaid two persons by two registered sale deed, (Exts. 1 and 2) in the year 1970. The plaintiff's case is that she has been in personal cultivation of the suit land since then. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants, who are four brothers used to look after their house hold affairs including agricultural operation on their behalf in their absence. The plaintiff used to live at Cuttack for 10 to 12 years and returned to village along with her husband and children in the year 1973. The defendants created trouble as they claimed tenancy right over the lands of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's further case is that the defendants called a meeting in the village and compelled her to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in their favour and threatened her in various ways. According to the plaintiff, she executed the sale deed, Ext. 4, dated 12-4-1974 in favour of the defendants being forced by them without payment of any consideration and they also forcibly took possession of the suit land and have been possessing the same since then. She has also alleged that in order to show that the suit transaction was a bona fide one, the defendants also executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of some other lands of the plaintiff relinquishing their alleged right of tenancy with respect thereto though in fact they had no such right. The essence of the plaintiff's allegation in the plaint is that Ext. 4 is void as the same was obtained by coercion and fraud and was not backed by any consideration. Asserting that Ext. 4 has conveyed no valid title in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title with a prayer to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit denying all plaint allegations. They assert that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land besides some other lands belonging to the plaintiff measuring Ac.3.345 decimals as bhag tenants. In the year 1974, there was some dispute between the husband of the plaintiff and the defendants respecting cultivation of the lands and it was amicably decided that defendants should execute a deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac.3.345 decimals of land in consideration of which the plaintiff was to pay Rs. 2000/- to the defendants. Since the plaintiff had no hard cash for payment of the aforesaid consideration, the plaintiff agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit, land in favour of the defendants which she did under Ext. 4. They thus claimed that the sale deed Ext. 4 was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff which was supported by consideration and conveyed valid title in their favour pursuant to which they have been in possession of the suit land. They claim that the suit is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.