RATNAKAR PRADHAN Vs. MANJULATA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Puri in R.F.A. Nos.14 and 15/2010 on 17/3/2015 followed by decree. As per the said common judgment, the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Puri on 11/1/2010 followed by decree in C.S. No.90/91 of 2008/2007 was confirmed. The Plaintiffs are the Appellants against the confirming judgment.

(2.) For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

(3.) The Plaintiffs' case is that they are the sons of late Jugal Pradhan and the original Plaintiff No.5 (since deceased) is their mother. Defendant No.1 is a stranger to the family. Defendant No.2 is the wife of Benudhar Pradhan, the deceased brother of the Plaintiffs. The suit property originally belonged to the family of the Plaintiffs and was used as residential house. The grandfather of the Plaintiffs and his niece, Uttei (daughter of his deceased elder brother) executed a sale deed in the year 1958 in favour of Bansidhar Pradhan, the minor son of Uttei. According to the Plaintiffs, it was a nominal sale deed and executed without any necessity. Bansidhar Pradhan executed a deed of reconveyance in 1964 in favour of the sons of Nada Pradhan namely, Jugal (father of the Plaintiffs), Kelu and Kunja. The suit property is part of the purchased property of Jugal Pradhan, who purchased it in the name of his minor son Benudhar vide R.S.D. dtd. 16/3/1964, but such purchase was for the benefit of his entire family, who possessed the same jointly. In 1966, the settlement R.O.R. was published wherein Plot No.662 measuring an area of Ac.0.25 decs. and Plot No.664 measuring an area of Ac.0.46 decs. were recorded under Khata No.257. On the other hand, Kelu Pradhan and Kunja Pradhan illegally mutated half of the said property in their name. The R.O.R. was corrected and the balance area was recorded as Plot No.315 under Khata No.321 in the consolidation R.O.R. When the Plaintiffs claimed the suit property after death of their father, Kelu and Kunja threatened to dispossess them and set up defendant No.2 to make a false claim. Though Defendant No.2 is the married wife of Benudhar(elder brother of the Plaintiffs) but such marriage was never consummated as she had left her matrimonial home on the next day of the marriage itself. Plaintiff No.1 is staying in the suit house along with his family. Defendant No.2 executed a nominal sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1 namely, Manjulata Pradhan without having any right of sale as it is a joint family property. Nevertheless, possession was never delivered. After obtaining the property thus, Defendant No.1 initiated a proceeding under Sec. 144 of Cr.P.C. against the Plaintiff No.1 before the Executive Magistrate, Pipili. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed the suit with prayer for setting aside the sale deed and for permanent injunction against Defendant No.1.