BASTU CHARAN Vs. CHITTA MAJHIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The LRs of the original defendant No.1 are in appeal against a confirming judgment. The appeal questions the correctness of judgment dtd. 25/9/1992, followed by decree passed by learned District Judge, Baripada in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1988, whereby the judgment dtd. 4/10/1988, followed by decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur in Title Suit No. 10 of 1995, was confirmed.

(2.) The suit was filed by the original plaintiff for recovery of possession and for declaration that the sale deeds dtd. 17/4/1984 executed by her mother in favour of the defendants are invalid. It is the plaintiff's case that one Bhagmat Majhi was the original owner of the suit properties, who had married Damani. The plaintiff was born out of said marriage. Her father, Bhagmat died when she was two years old. Her mother, Damani remarried Dasmat Soren after death of her husband. The plaintiff possessed her half share of her father's property separately from her mother and she allowed her to possess the other half till her death in 1984. The defendants managed to get the sale deeds in question executed by Damani in their favour in respect of the suit property, which are invalid.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by resisting the plea of the plaintiff that she was the daughter of Bhagmat. According to them, Bhagmat had never married Damani and plaintiff was not his daughter as Damani was married to Dasmath. The plaintiff is the daughter of Dasmat and Damani. The suit properties originally belonged to Kanda and Bastu, who were brothers but Bhagmat was the son of Kanda. Dasmat and four others were sons of Bastu. The suit properties were recorded jointly in the names of Bastu and Bhagmat in 1927 settlement and were being possessed jointly. Dasmat died unmarried for which his share passed on to the other four sons of Bastu by survivorship. Damani had never executed any sale deed in favour of the defendants but they possessed the suit property for about 45 years.