SMT. BHARGABI BADPANDA Vs. KRUPASINDHU BADAPANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in Title Appeal No. 32/7 of 1996-98. The respondent as the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant-appellant. The suit having been decreed by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and directing the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit land after demolishing the structure standing thereon, the unsuccessful defendant had carried the appeal. That appeal has also been dismissed Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in appeal have been confirmed. Therefore, the defendant having been unsuccessful all through has moved this Court with the present appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

(3.) Case of the plaintiff is that he, the defendant and two others, namely, Jagneswar Badapada and Badmati Badapanda had jointly purchased Ac.0.15 decimals of land on 18.01.1954. In the major settlement all those purchasers received their parcha jointly under one Khata. It is stated that thereafter they divided the property amongst themselves. Consequent upon the same, they filed a joint petition before the Tahasildar, Sambalpur for separate recording of the land as per their amicable partition and that gave rise to Mutation Case No. 873 of 1983. Accordingly, the prayer was allowed by order marked as Ext. 2 in the said mutation case. Thus the land described in schedule 'A' of the plaint fell to the share of the plaintiff and the land measuring Ac.0.03 dec. from out of the land under that very plot No. 2081 came to be recorded in the name of the defendant being in her share in the said amicable partition. It is alleged that the defendant has illegally encroached over the portion of the suit land in schedule 'A' taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff. So, after demarcation, the suit was filed. The defendant admitted the joint purchase by the four persons including herself and the plaintiff on 18.01.1954 under sale deed (Ext.1). It is also admitted that parcha in the major settlement was issued jointly. However, she projected a case that after the major settlement operation, the elder brother of her husband in connivance with the plaintiff practiced fraud and undue influence upon her and obtained her signatures on some blank papers. Those are said to have been utilized in that mutation case giving rise to the order under Ext. 2. It is thus said that the order of mutation is nonest in the eye of law being the outcome of fraud and undue influence at the instance of the plaintiff and the Brundaban Badapanda (elder brother of the husband of the defendant). So that order is said to be binding on her. She also seriously disputed the prior amicable partition among the purchasers. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff as regards his exclusive right, title and interest and possession over the suit land is resisted with vehemence. In view of the above, she has said that there has been no encroachment as alleged at his end.