SANKIRTAN SHA Vs. JAYA KRUSHNA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in T.S. No. 6/39 of 1981 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh in a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction, having lost in both the Courts, below has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondent in the trial Court is as follows : Plaintiff purchased 1.0 Acre of land described in Schedule A of the plaint from appellant No.1 who was the Karta of the Joint family in the year 1965 for a consideration of Rs.500/ -. Appellant No.1 sold the land for purchasing cattle and also for constructing a house. The appellants are 'Bhuyan by caste which has been mentioned to be a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, without obtaining permission from the competent authority it was not possible for defendant No.1 to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. Thus, defendant No.1 applied for obtaining permission for sale of 1.00 Acre of land in Misc.Case No.107 of 1966 -67. The petition for permission was sent to the Tahasildar for an enquiry and report. On the basis of the report of the Tahasildar, the S.D.O. accorded permission for sale of the land to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE appellants case as described in their written statement is as follows : The suit land was never intended to be sold by appellant No.1 to the plaintiff -respondent. The plaintiff respondent as a matter of fact took the suit land on possessory mortgage. Defendant No.1 being an illiterate Scheduled Tribe person, therefore, believing it to be usufructuary mortgage put his L.T.I. He was a liquor addict and under the influence of liquor, the plaintiff -respondent maneuvered to take a document from him. Defendant No.1 after expiry of 7 years got into possession and since then he has been enjoying the same. As the plaintiff -respondent is rich man in the locality, he therefore, started one case after another taking advantage of simplicity of defendant No.1. The plaintiff taking advantage of defendant No.1s illiteracy and simplicity got the deed fraudulently executed by taking the L.T.I. from defendant No.1, but it was never meant to be a deed of conveyance. The market value of the suit land was much more than Rs.5000/ - for which it is allegedly conveyed to the plaintiff.