KIRAN KUMARI BRAHMA Vs. BANSIDHAR BARIK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 36 of 1997 against the appellant of R.S.A. No. 317 of 2004 being arraigned as defendant No. 2 and predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 being the other defendants. He has also filed Title Suit No. 82 of 1993 against the appellant No. 1 arrayed as defendant No. 2 and the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) as well as the appellant Nos. 3 to 6 of RSA 318 of 2004.

(2.) In Title Suit No. 36 of 1997, the plaintiff-Bansidhar Barik prayed for declaring the sale-deed No. 1051 of 1994 said to have been executed by Haladhar Barik (defendant No. 1) in favour of the Kiran Kumari Brahma, the appellant to be invalid and to have clothed her with no right, title, interest or possession in respect of the suit land.

(3.) Facts necessary for the purpose of these appeals are as under : Plaintiff-Bansidhar Barik and defendant Haladhar Barik are two brothers and they are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The suit land is a piece of undivided house and homestead of the two brothers. It is stated that the said land was purchased by their parents and it was so jointly recorded in their names when both were in occupation. It is stated that the land was purchased by their father and mother and they were in possession of the same when also the record stood as such. A piece of land measuring 3 decimals belonging to the State was in their possession along with the purchased land. After the death of parents, the two sons succeeded to the same and accordingly possessed having equal interest when there was no partition in metes and bounds though the possession was according to convenience. So it is stated that defendant Haladhar Barik could not have sold land out of that homestead with the standing house by executing sale-deeds in favour of other defendants as the land is joint family homestead land and as the sales were not with the consent of the plaintiff and that too without partition in the metes and bounds between him and his brother. Thus, the sale-deeds are said to be void and in-operative. The contesting defendants assert that the sale-deeds are valid and were for legal necessity. It is stated that there was partition and a document to that effect was prepared whose original is with the plaintiff.