UPENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. BIDHUMUKHI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal by one of the defendants, namely Upendra Kumar Mahapatra from the concurrent decision dated 30-4-1986 of the sub-Judge, Bargarh, passed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1983 by which the suit is decreed.

(2.) Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are wife and husband. As per the plaint averment late Gouri Shankar Mahapatra, father of the defendants, in the capacity of Karta of the Hindu undivided Joint family sold A. 1.22 decimals of land as fully described in schedule 'A' of the plaint to plaintiff No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 22-6-1964 (Ext.5) wherein defendant No. 3 is an attesting witness, to meet the pressing family necessity, delivered possession of it to her and since then the plaintiffs have been possessing the same. Before the sale defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who had already attained majority by then, executed an Ekrarnama (Ext.4) authorizing their father, Gouri Shankar Mahapatra to alienate a portion of the joint family property. On 24/25-7-1980 the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed land, for which they filed Title Suit No. 76 of 1980 in the Court of Munsif, Bargarh praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with cost.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement repelled the averments made in the plaint by stating that there was no such sale arid that the land in question was a part and parcel of their ancestral property and they along with their father and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had been possessing the same till the death of their father, whereafter they possessed it till they were restrained from entering it in an ad interim order of injunction passed in the aforesaid suit. They further pleaded that assuming, but not admitting that there was such a sale, since their father did not obtain prior consent of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who had already attained majority by then, for such sale, the defendants are not bound by the sale deed. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.