SITA DEI Vs. DAITARY MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant against the confirming judgment. Plaintiff's case is that the defendant executed a sale deed (Ex. 3) on 6-4-1951 for consideration. It was presented for registration on 4-3-51. Subsequently the defendant did not turn up before the Sub-registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar refused to register on 14-9-1951. Plaintiffs filed an" application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act which was rejected on 30-4-1953 under Section 76 of the Registratian, Act. The plaintiffs accordingly filed the suit on 14-5-1953. The relief sought in the suit is not merely to get Ex. 3 registered. Further reliefs have been claimed for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession.

(2.) THE defence case is that the defendant is an illiterate lady who fixed her thumb impression and signature on a blank paper on the representation that it was a mortgage bond. She denied execution and passing of consideration.

(3.) BOTH the courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs have established execution of the document and that they are in possession of the disputed land. The learned trial Court decreed the suit declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land and confirming possession. The defendant was directed to register Ex. 3 within one month, that is within 27-10-57 failing which the Court was to get it registered on behalf of the defendant. The learned lower appellate court varied the trial Court's decree in not granting declaration of title, but directed the defendant to execute a fresh sale-deed and to get it registered within 30-4-63, failing which the plaintiffs were to get the sale deed executed and registered by the Court on behalf of the defendant. He granted the further relief that on the completion of the sale-deed, the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property would stand declared. He confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs and injuncted the defendant not to disturb their possession. It is to be noted that the learned lower appellate Court substantially varied the decree of the trial Court inasmuch as under the trial Court's decree the defendant was to merely get Ex. 3 registered, while under the lower appellate Court's decree," she was to execute a fresh saledeed and get it registered.