HAREKRISHNA DAS Vs. JUJESTHI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the confirming judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is that the disputed properties originally belonged to one Padmalav Panda who died leaving the mother of plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 as daughter and one Sadhu husband of defendant 4 as the only son; that Sadhu died in 1940 leaving a son Gopi and his widow defendant 4 but a year later, that is, in 1941 Gopi also died; that defendant 4 executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 3 without any legal necessity or consideration; and that the suit is therefore filed for a declaration that the sale deeds are invalid and not binding on them.

(3.) THE trial Court found that plaintiff 1 was daughter of Padmalav and not a daughter of a sister of Padmalav, but dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for as they are not the nearest reversioners. He also held that only one of the sale deeds was supported by consideration and for legal necessity. With regard to the other sale deed he held that legal necessity was not proved fully,