ANNAPURNA BARIK DEI Vs. INDA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'CPC'), the conclusion that the deed dated 30-8-1975, though styled as a sale deed was in reality a deed for security of loan, is assailed to be incorrect and contrary to evidence. With the aforesaid conclusion the suit filed by the present respondents as plaintiffs was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif-cum-JMSC, Balasore, and confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Balasore.

(2.) The fact situation is almost undisputed except relating to the nature of the document. Stands of the parties sans unnecessary details are as follows: Inda Bewa (plaintiff No. 1) is the widow of one Bhima Barik. Respondents 2 to 8 (plaintiffs 2 to 8) were their sons and daughters. Appellant No. 2 Rama Chandra Barik (defendant No. 2) is the nephew of aforesaid Bhima, his father being elder brother of Bhima. Appellant No. 1 Annapurna (defendant No. 1) is the wife of Rama Chandra. By a registered sale deed dated 29-5-1957, Rama Chandra and late Bhima jointly purchased some property including the scheduled property. By amicable arrangement, each of them was possessing half of that. The suit property was in possession of Bhima. After his death, sometime in January, 1975, the property devolved on his wife and children, the plaintiffs. Being hard pressed for sustenance, some of the plaintiffs worked as labourers and house hold servants. Rama Chandra used to render periodic assistance by supplying some rice and paddy. He prevailed upon Inda (plaintiff No. 1) to execute a deed. According to the plaintiffs, it was conveyed to Inda that it was a deed for security of loan, with a condition to reconvey the property after repayment of loan amount. But surreptitiously it was styled as a sale deed, and executed on 30-8-1975. There was an agreement that the document in question shall be returned after Sanatan (plaintiff No. 2) attained majority. It was also agreed that the plaintiffs shall refund the amount advanced by Rama Chandra from time to time. Plaintiff No. 1 is an illiterate, rustic and Pardanashin lady. She did not understand the implication of the recitals of the deed as the same was neither read over to her nor explained to her at the time of execution. Although the consideration amount is mentioned to be Rs. 800 / -, she had neither received that amount, nor the same was paid by Rama Chandra in cash. There was no necessity for selling the land. Although the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property, yet two years after the execution of the deed, Rama Chandra demanded a sum of Rs. 300 / - from the plaintiffs together with interest at the rate of 25% per annum. Since the plaintiffs could not pay the amount, they permitted defendants to possess the suit property and enjoy the usufructs towards repayment of the loan. That is how the defendants were in possession of the suit property from the year 1978. Thereafter, they initiated a proceeding for mutation of the land on the basis of sale-deed. On getting notice, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have fraudulently got the land mutated in their favour on 27-8-1982. Though request was made by the plaintiffs to the defendants to return the deed and give up possession on 15-1-1981, there was denial by the latter. The defendants while admitting the fact of joint purchase and amicable possession of half of the property by each, disputed the other assertions. According to them, they were not pulling on well with Bhima during his life-time and after his death with the plaintiffs. Being misguided by a common relation, namely, Chandramani Barik, they were trying to create problems. In the year 1974-75 there was drought, and the plaintiffs faced a lot of difficulties to maintain themselves. Inda (plaintiff No.1) therefore decided to sell away the suit property. Since nobody came forward to purchase the same, aforesaid Chandramani Barik (examined as P.W. 2) requested Ram Chandra to purchase the land. In his mediation the property was purchased by Rama Chandra's wife Annapurna (defendant No.1) by utilisation of her own funds. Inda had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, where after adjustment of the amount already paid either in cash or kind, the balance was, paid in cash. After execution of the deed, defendants were in possession of the land which was delivered to them. They had paid rent after mutation, and there was no question of repayment of any loan. The deed was never intended to be a security for loan, and it was out and out a sale deed for consideration.

(3.) On consideration of rival submissions and the materials on record, conclusion of learned Additional Munsif-cum-JMFC was that the deed was in fact one for security for loan. The guidelines to be applied in the case of execution of a document by an illiterate, Pardanashin lady were kept in view while coming to the aforesaid conclusions. The appeal filed by the defendants before the learned District Judge, as stated above, did not yield any result.