NARAYAN JOSHI Vs. PRAMILA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the defendants in Title Suit No. 48 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Boudh and the Respondent was Plaintiff No. 2 in that suit. Plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit and there was no other legal representative except plaintiff No, 2, so, no other person was substituted on her death. The suit property measures an area of Ac. 1. 84 decimals in seven plots under Khata No. 25 of village Bandhapathar in the district of Boudh. The admitted case of both the parties is that Late Raghunath Joshi, husband of deceased -plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 was the owner of the property by the date of his death and after his death his widow and daughter succeeded to that property. Defendants are the agnetic nephews of Raghunath Joshi.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that after death of Raghunath Joshi and taking into consideration the widowhood, illiteracy and paradanashin conditions of plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 being staying in another village after her marriage, the defendants managed the property on behalf of the plaintiffs but by practising fraud obtained from plaintiff No. 1 a registered deed of sale with respect to the entire suit property vide Registered document No. 1845 of 1992. Accordingly they filed the suit claiming title with the prayer for recovery of possession with the declaration that no right, title and interest has passed on to defendants on the basis of that registered sale deed. Defendants filed their written statement pleading about a valid transaction of sale and having acquired title and possession on that basis.

(3.) ON analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Boudh dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as per the judgment delivered by him on 4.7.1997. Trial Court recorded the finding that after death of Raghunath Joshi both the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit property but plaintiff No. 1 as the sole recorded tenant executed the sale deed in the year 1992 knowing the contents thereof consciously and therefore she is bound by that sale transaction and defendants have acquired right, title, interest and possession over the case land. Accordingly the Civil Judge dismissed the suit. Plaintiff No. 2 challenged that decree and in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2000 (Title Appeal No. 31/ 1997 of the District Court, Phulbani), learned Addl. District Judge, Boudh after hearing the parties reversed that decree to the extent of half interest of plaintiff No. 2, i.e., the present respondent.