BHULA GOUDA Vs. SUNDER MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.1 Bhula Gouda, who has lost in both the Courts below has filed this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in this appeal) and Mitu Majhi, defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) are brothers. Plaintiff alleged that Mitu Majhi was a drunkard and without any legal necessity he executed a sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Bhula Gouda and Jirman Gouda in the year 1962 in respect of the suit land which is a joint family property without any consideration. The suit was filed for a declaration that the transfer of the land by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void. He further prayed for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for delivery of possession of the same to him. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. Their case is that the transfer is valid, the sale is for consideration and the plaintiff and defendant No.3 Mitu Majhi were separate in mess and property. Defendant No.3 supported the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case decreed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal preferred by Bhula Gouda and Jirman Gouda, defendants Nos.1 and 2, against the aforesaid judgment and decree the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Against this decision of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the findings of both the Courts, namely (1) as there was no partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.3, prior to the execution of the sale deed by defendant No.3, the defendant No.3 had no right to transfer the suit land without any legal necessity and (2) the sale deed is void as no permission has been obtained under S.7 of the Merged States (Laws) Act (hereinafter called "The Act") by defendants 1 and 2.