HARISH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. DIBYASINGHA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short. 'CPC') is whether the conclusion of the Courts below that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Gandharb Sahu, defendant-respondent No. 3 is proper.

(2.) Factual position is almost undisputed, and a brief reference to it would suffice.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were set ex parte. A joint written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. They denied the plaint allegations, and pleaded that the suit property belonged to defendant No. 3 exclusively, and for legal necessity he sold the property by a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1on receipt of due consideration and possession of the property was delivered. They denied the allegation that the deed in question was a nominal one, and it was stated that defendant No. 2 had applied for permission to run a rice huller on the suit land after completion of the house thereon, and there was an agreement for construction of two rooms at the expenses of defendant No. 2 and the cost of construction Would be adjusted from the monthly rent.