BISWANATH SAHU Vs. DASA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALAJI, Dinabandhu and Kripasindhu were brothers. Balaji died leaving behind three sons, Kelai, Dasa and Binoda who died in 1928, 1917 and 1936 respectively rukuna, Kelai's widow, died in 1942-43. After the death of Dasa, his widow Ratani remarried Binoda. She died in 1957. Dinabandhu died issueless. Lokanath and biswanath (plaintiff) are the sons of Kripasindhu. The disputed lands are plot 701 with an area 0. 02 acre in Khata No. 478 and plot 702 with an area 0. 01 acre in khata No. 270. It is the admitted case that the disputed lands belonged to Kelai and Binoda who were separate, and after their death, those were recorded in the name of Rukuna and Ratani (described as widow of Binoda ). On 15-10-1949 ratani executed a registered sale deed (Ex. A) for a consideration of Rs. 400 in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff's suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction on the allegation that he was the adopted son of Kelai and was in possession all through. In the written statement, plaintiffs adoption and his possession of the disputed property are denied. Defence case is that after the death of Rukuna in 1942-43, ratani alone remained in possession of the disputed lands and transferred them to the defendant in 1949 whereafter the defendant is in exclusive possession in his own right, title and interest. The suit was filed on 15-2-1961 and is barred by limitation.

(2.) THE Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Kelai, that after the death of Rukuna, Ratani alone was in exclusive possession of the disputed lands till the transfer in favour of the defendant in 1949 whereafter the defendant is in exclusive possession in his own right, title and interest, and that before the death of Rukuna, she and Ratani were in joint possession as tenants-in-common. On the aforesaid findings plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the confirming decree.

(3.) THE aforesaid findings of the Courts below are pure findings of fact. Nothing substantial was urged by Mr. Misra to establish that those were contrary to law.