RABINARAYAN KHUNTIA Vs. FAKIR DALEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is against the reversing judgment of the learned District Judge, Puri, passed in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1976.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's suit was for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and for injunction in respect of the suit land to an extent of Ac. 1. 82 -1/2 dec., more specifically described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. Plaintiff's case, in brief, was that the suit land belonged to one Lokanath Dalai who died issueless. His wife predeceased him. Defendants 3 to 5 as brother's and sister's sons of Lokanath succeeded to all his properties including the suit land and while being in possession, transferred the suit land to the plaintiff under the sale deed, Ext. 1. Defendant No. 1 advanced a false claim over the suit land alleging that he is the adopted son of Lokanath. It is asserted by the plaintiff that both Lokanath and his wife were illiterate and taking advantage of their illiteracy defendant No. 1 got some deeds of conveyance executed and registered from them describing himself as their son and subsequently transferred certain properties belonging to Lokanath to defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed, Ext. H. A dispute regarding possession of the suit land arose for which a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was initiated and in that proceeding possession was declared in favour of defendant No. 2. This led the plaintiff, who was then a minor, to file the present suit through his father/guardian for declaration of his title and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as seven issues and having discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, disbelieved the defendant No. 1's plea of adoption and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit. Upon appeal, the learned District Judge on re -appraisal of the evidence as also relying upon the documents, viz : sale deeds executed by Lokanath and his wife, voters -list and admission of Lokanath's wife in criminal proceeding, came to hold that defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Lokanath and having so held, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment of the appellate Court that the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.