B. BHARATI Vs. B. PAPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these above noted Appeals filed by the Appellant under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short called as 'the Code') arise out of the common judgment followed by decrees passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur in RFA No.44 of 2020, RFA No.45 of 2020 and RFA No.10 of 2021, which had arisen from the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Berhampur in Civil Suit No.334 of 2013; in disposing the suit as well as counter claim; those were head together for their disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over the land as described in the schedule of the plaint in mouza: Goilundi under Plot No.2362/4099 appertaining to Khata No.1166/4910 measuring an area Ac.0.042 decimals along with the Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) and partition of the said property between the Appellant (Plaintiff) and Respondent no.1 arraigned as Defendant No.1; to declare the Plaintiff (Appellant) and Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) as the lawful owners of the suit schedule property having the right, title, interest and possession, having equal share over the same; to declare the registered sale-deed dtd. 27/9/2013 as void having been obtained by practicing fraud as void and to partition the suit property between the Plaintiff (Appellant) and Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in two equal halves. In the said suit, the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) had filed counter claim asserting his right, title and interest over the suit property covered under the registered sale-deed dtd. 27/9/2013 vide RSD No.10601307426 standing in his name being executed by Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1). The suit stood preliminarily decreed for partition between the Appellant and the Respondent no.1 (Defendant No.1) with further order of adjustment of the purchased property by the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) towards the share of the Respondent No.1 (Respondent No.1) who is the vendor of Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) and the counter claim stood dismissed. After the disposal of the suit and counter claim as aforesaid, the Appellant being the unsuccessful Plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied in view of the refusal of the Court to declare the registered sale-deed standing in favour of Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) as void and directing for adjustment of the said land towards the share of Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in the partition filed the Appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code which was numbered as RFA No.10 of 2021. The Respondent No.2(Defendant No.2) however carried two Appeals; one against the dismissal of the Counter Claim filed by him and the other one against the finding standing against him which are RFA No.44 of 2020 and RFA No.45 of 2020. The Appeals filed by the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) and the Appeal filed by this Appellant as the aggrieved Plaintiff has been disposed by the common judgment followed by the decree which have been challenged in there three second Appeals filed by the aggrieved Plaintiff as the Appellant.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.