TARINI KANTA GIRI Vs. BHAJANANANDA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Karanjia passed in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1985 -l reversing the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Karanjia in Title Suit No. 12 of 1981 -l.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 as plaintiff filed the above noted suit asking for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, which he claims to have purchased from Respondent No. 4, who was defendant No. 3 in the suit. His specific pleading was that in a family partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendant No. 3 and that defendant sold the same to him by means of a registered sale deed Ext. 1 and delivered possession of the land, but defendant No. 5 created disturbance in his possession. The present appellant, who was defendant No. 5, contested that claim pleading inter alia that in the family partition the suit land fell to the share of respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit and that defendant No. 1 first entered into an agreement with him vide Ext. A and thereafter sold the suit land to him and basing on that sale, he came into possession of the suit land. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the parties came to hold that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property fell to the share of Defendant No. 3 and that the plaintiff acquired title over the property through the sale effected by defendant No. 1. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit, but directed for refund of the consideration amount to the plaintiff. Against that judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 10 of 1985. Learned first appellate Court on reconsideration of the evidence and circumstance reversed that finding with the observation that the suit land never fell to the share of defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff got right, title over the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by defendant No. 1. The present appeal is against the said order and observation of the first appellate Court.

(3.) MR . L. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 while supporting the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court submitted that the findings do not suffer from illegality or perversity and, therefore, there is no scope of any interference in second appeal.