NARAYAN PARIDA Vs. ARTABANDHU JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant against an affirming decision in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction in respect of the disputed land measuring Ac.2 .00 1/2 decimals in mauza Pandiakera and Bagipada as per the schedule appended to the plaint.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case in nutshell is that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. But on account of his old age as he found it difficult to manage the settlement work himself, he decided to authorise the defendant who happens to be his sister's son to look after the settlement operation on his behalf. For that purpose he intended to execute a power -of -attorney in favour of the defendant on 12 -8 -1972. He came to Sakhigopal and registered the document. The document was scribed by a Deed Writer of the choice of the defendant and plaintiff in good faith executed the same believing it to be a power -of - attorney. On 10 -10 -1977, when defendant threatened to interfere with the plaintiffs possession, the plaintiff enquired and found that the document executed by him was a sale deed and not a power -of -attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) ON these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed five issues and on considering all the issues together, he came to hold that Ext. A is a document which is neither valid nor binding and the defendant does not acquire any title on the basis of Ext. A and the plaintiff did not execute the document after the document was read over and explained to him and after he knew the contents thereof. With these findings, the Trial Judge having decreed the plaintiff's suit and having restrained the defendant carried the matter in appeal.