BINAY Vs. KATYAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this revision petition is whether the suit abates under S.4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, (for short referred to as the Act).

(2.) The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit with an application for permission to sue as an indigent person (Misc. case No. 219 of 1981) in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore. The reliefs sought in the plaint were to declare documents Nos. 4112 to 4118 dated 9-11-1979 executed by her in favour of defendants 1 to 9 as illegal, inoperative, backed by no consideration and void; for confirmation of plaintiffs possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The petitioners in this revision petition are defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the suit. On being noticed by the Court, the petitioners filed their objection to the application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. They filed another application on 17-11-1982 stating, inter alia, that all the properties involved in the case lie within the area notified under S.3 of the Consolidation Act, the consolidation proceeding is continuing in the said area and hence the suit in the civil court is not maintainable. The said application was considered by the trial court and by the order dated 4-12-1982 the court rejected the application holding that the suit does not abate and he had jurisdiction to try and decide the same. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order. S.4(4) of the Act read as follows :-

(3.) Hence, the question to be determined in this case is whether on construing the plaint can it be said that the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to undertake the enquiry and grant relief sought for in the plaint. The main relief sought for in the plaint, as already noticed, is to declare the deeds of gift and the sale deeds executed by the opposite party No. 1 in favour of the petitioners and other defendants null and void. The gist of the case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff, an old, ailing and illiterate lady was given the impression that she was executing some documents authorising defendant No. 1 to manage her properties, but subsequently she came to know that the said defendant No. 1 had got several sale deeds and gift deeds executed by her in that process.