BARUNI Vs. PADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit and died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court for which the present appellants were substituted. The appeal has been filed against the reversing judgement in the suit filed for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of o. 27 acres of land in Khata No. 114 of Mouza-Uasahi. The respondents 1 and 2 were the defendants 1 and 2 before the trial court and were the appellants 1 and 2 before the lower appellate court. Respondent No. 3 was the defendant No. 3 who was set ex parte and was the pro forma respondent No. 2 in the lower appellate court.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that the suit land belonged to one Mani Das who died leaving behind his son Gobinda. Gobinda died in 1950 leaving behind his widow Saria and son Ganesh. While Ganesh was alive his mother fostered Kunti, defendant No. 3 for the purpose of giving her in marriage with Ganesh, but since Ganesh died before the marriage, defendant No. 3 returned to her father's place and was married to one Kartika Panda and thereafter to one Jagannath Das. The appellants purchased the suit properties from Saria by registered sale deed, Ext. 1 dated 17-2-1967. In 1971 the defendant No. 2 filed a criminal case against the plaintiff and others under Section 447 Indian Penal Code, alleging to have purchased 8 annas interest of the suit properties from defendant No. 3 on 11-3-1967, but however the case ended in acquittal. Kunti was never married to Ganesh, had no interest in the property, and was also a minor when the sale deed was obtained from Kunti fraudulently on false pretext and further, it was a nominal and void sale deed without consideration. However, since defendants 1 and 2 threatened the possession of plaintiff he filed a suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement stating that Kunti had married Ganesh and they had remained as husband and wife till the death of Ganesh. Kunti was major when she executed the sale deed (Ext. A) and since then they were possessing the suit land.

(3.) The trial court framed 6 issues and came to the conclusion that Kunti was not married to Ganesh and defendants 1 and 2 had not acquired title or possession over the suit land by virtue of their purchase from Kunti. The court found the plaintiff's title over the suit land on the basis of purchase from Saria by Ext. 1.