ARAKHITA DAS Vs. HARI MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT-3 is the appellant. Plaintiff's case is as follows: The disputed property belonged to late Madhu Mohapatra. Madhu adopted late Antarjyami, father of the plaintiff. Paluni, widow of Madhu, died on August 21, 1957. During the settlement operations of 1916, Paluni and Antarjyami did not pull on well. Palu'ni claimed maintenance. The matter was decided in her favour by the Superintendent of the ex-State of Nayagarh. In Miscellaneous case No. 27 of 1916-17, the Deputy commissioner of Angul passed the following order:

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit challenging the adoption of Antarjyami and asserting that Paluni was the owner of the suit property in exclusive possession. The sales were for consideration and Paluni became full owner after 1956.

(3.) THE Courts below concurrently found that Antarjyami was adopted by Madhu, that the disputed property was separately possessed by Paluni towards her maintenance and that there was consideration for the sale deeds (Exs. A, B and b/l ). The alienees did not press the question that the sales were for legal necessity. The finding must therefore be that the sales were without legal necessity.