DURGAMANI BEHERA Vs. GHASIRAM MOHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1, 3, 5 and 7 are in appeal against the decision of Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, decreeing plaintiffs' suit for title in respect o1 18 manas and 6 gunths of lands and directing delivery of possession of the same.

(2.) NITYANANDA and Shyama Charan were step -brothers. Nityananda died leaving behind his son defendant No. 8. Shyama Charan died leaving behind his son Bhagirathi. Bhagirathi died leaving behind his widow defendant No. 1 and issues defendants 2 to 7. The suit lands belonged to Nityananda. On 7 -2 -1949 he executed and registered a sale deed (Ext. B) in respect of the above Sands in favour of Shyama Charan. Then on 24 -4 -1964 Shyama Charan executed and registered a sale deed (Ext. 1) in respect of the said lands in favour of the two plaintiffs. Then Nityananda brought Title Suit No, 15 of 1965 against Shyama Charan and the present plaintiffs, praying for title and possession in respect oi the suit Sands. On 6 -2 -1967, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter on 28 -7 -1967, Shyama Charan executed and registered a deed of cancellation (Ext. C) cancelling the earlier sale deed Ext. 1. Then Shyama Charan died and thereafter, the present plaintiffs brought the suit against the heirs of Shyama Charan and Nityananda praying for declaration of their title in respect of the suit lands on the basis of Ext. 1 taking the ground that the deed of cancellation was neither legal nor valid in law.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1, 3, 5 and 7 filed a joint written statement and contested the suit at the trial. They contended that in the year 1964 Shyama Charan wanted to sell the suit lands. Plaintiff No. 1 came forward to purchase the same, but as he had no money, he proposed to pay the consideration after harvest of 1964 crop and take possession of the suit lands thereafter. Accordingly, the sale deed Ext. 1 was executed and registered. They further contended that after dismissal of Title Suit No. 15 of 1965, Shayma Charan demanded payment of consideration and as plaintiffs avoided to pay the same. former executed and registered the deed of cancellation, Ext. C. It is thus, contended that the plaintiffs have not acquired any title or possession under the impugned sale deed.