TRUTIA MIRDHA Vs. BASUDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir reversing the decision of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) THIS appeal was originally heard by Barman, J. who considering the importance of the question of law involved in this appeal, referred it to a Division Bench.

(3.) THE appellate court's finding that the sale was for family necessity and for the benefit of the family must be accepted. From the recitals in Ext. 2, it is pretty clear that the family was unable to invest the necessary money for reclamation of the suit-land; on the other hand it was in arrears of rent in respect of the suit-land. That was the reason why they made an application before the authorities concerned for permitting them to sell the suit-land to some non-aboriginals as it was not possible to find out an aboriginal purchaser. That payment of arrears of land-revenue is one of the legal necessities of the family cannot be doubted. Further, it appears from the recitals in the sale-deed, Ext. A that they had some previous loans which they also wanted to pay up. It appears from the evidence of defendant 1 that the parties owed a sum of Rs. 303 to one Lakmidhar Tripathy and Dambaru Behera and also a sum of Rs. 68/- to defendant 1. THE defendant 1 also enquired about the said loans from Laxmidhar and Dambaru and he himself saw the stamps. Thus, the parties had also some previous loans existing on the date of sale (Ext. A). THEre is some evidence to show that the family had no other source of income from which the arrears of rent or the loans or even the maintenance of the family could be met. We have already seen that there is no evidence in support of the plaintiffs' contention that he was regularly sending money-orders to his family for their maintenance.