RAMA PUJHARI Vs. GOURI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 33 of 1975 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna (presently Civil Judge, Senior Division) filed the suit claiming the relief of (1) declaration of sale deed executed on 2-3-1964 by Sriramulu Naik in favour of defendant No. 1 Ram Pujari as a void document; (2) grant recovery of possession of the suit land measuring an area of Ac. 16.90 decimals out of Khata No. 86 (current settlement) of village Thuamal Rampur in the district of Kalahandi; and (3) to declare their right, title and interest over the said case land.

(2.) Plaintiffs sought for the aforesaid prayer on the ground that their father Sriramulu Naik borrowed some money from defendant No. 1 and could not repay the same and, therefore, defendant No. 1 pressurised and persuaded him (Sriramulu) to execute a mortgage deed. By then Sriramulu was 90 years old, he was sick, hard of hearing with defective vision and therefore, was not in a fit state of mind and health to take an independent decision in respect of transaction of properties. When the matter stood thus, on 2-3-1964 defendant No. 1 succeeded in getting a document executed by Sriramulu. The latter was under the belief that the said document was a deed of mortgage, but in fact that was a registered sale deed, which was obtained by defendant No. 1 clandestinely. In 1975, a few years after the death of Sriramulu, plaintiff No. 1 offered the loan amount to regain the case land and then he could come to know that defendant No. 1 with the help of others played the mischief and obtained the sale deed Ext.B for a very nominal consideration of Rs. 600/- (rupees six hundred) though by then value of the case land was about Rs. 8,000/- (rupees eight thousand). With the said description of facts and circumstances, plaintiffs claimed for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of defendant No. 1. They filed a joint written statement denying to the aforesaid plaint allegations and stating that the arrear revenue to the tune of Rs. 315/- (three hundred fifteen) was required to be paid and defendant No. 1 advanced that money in favour of Sriramulu. Thereafter Sriramulu expressed his inability to repay the loan and agreed to transfer the case land. The locality where the suit land exists was then infested with wild animals in the main jungle and there was no one willing to purchase that land. However, defendant No. 1 agreed and purchased the said land at the then existing market price of Rs. 600/-. After execution of such sale deed the land was mutated in the name of the defendants and they are in peaceful possession of the case land all throughout. Defendants also raised the legal issue that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and that the suit is highly under-valued.