PADMA Vs. KRUPASINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal, dismissing her suit for a declaration that the defendants-respondents, one of them being her husband's brother and the other two being the sons of her husband's brother, had not acquired any title over the suit land by virtue of Ext.1, the sale deed executed by her deceased husband in the year 1968, which, according to the appellant, had been fraught with fraud and misrepresentation. The respondents, it was alleged by her, had got this deed executed by playing fraud and by misrepresenting that some modifications were necessary to the earlier deed of sale (Ex.H) executed by her husband in their favour in 1950. The appellant had also prayed for permanent injunction, for confirmation of her possession in respect of the land in suit and in the alternative, for restoration of possession to her in case it was found that she had been dispossessed. The respondents had disputed the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and had asserted that Ex.1 had duly been executed by the executant after knowing the contents thereof and on receipt of the consideration amount. This, in short, would represent the cases of both the parties. The details have been set out in the pleadings and in the impugned judgment.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence led by the parties to the suit, the learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the case of the appellant that the sale deed in question had been got executed by playing fraud or by misrepresentation and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mrs.Padhi has contended that there was evidence substantiating fraud and misrepresentation which had resulted in the execution of Ex. 1 and the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in dismissing the suit. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant that the fact that the appellant's husband had sold away his entire lands would show that he had not intended a sale and this would be a pointer to the practice of fraud and misrepresentation. At the hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.