UPENDRA MAHANTO AND ANOTHER Vs. CHAMPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 18/76 claiming one-fourth share and allotment of 'Una' Schedule property and damages of Rs. 700.00 towards prices of buffalo and calf from defendants 1, 5 and 6. The trial Court while negativing the claim for partition and damages has declared that the sale deed dated 1-3-1974 (Ext. C) executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 5 and 6 was invalid and not binding on her. The aforesaid Judgment and direction of the trial Court are under challenge at the instance of defendants 5 and 6.

(2.) The undisputed genealogy relating to the parties is extracted hereunder: <img src="/Docs/601820.jpg">

(3.) The plaintiff's case is as follows : The properties described in Schedules 'Ka' and 'Kha' of the plaint were the ancestral joint family properties. Defendant No. 1 who is the step-mother of the plaintiff obtained a deed of gift by exercise of undue influence from Raibu Mohanta in 1962 in respect of lands in 'Ga' Schedule, In spite of the said deed of gift Raibu Mohanta continued to be in possession of the lands till his death. However, in 1935, defendant No. 1, the-second wife of Raibu, executed a sale deed in respect of 'Ga' Schedule lands in favour of defendant No. 4, who was her son through her first husband late Bira Mohanta, without consideration and without legal necessity. In spite of the said sale deed 'Ga' Schedule lands were under possession of the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3. The further case of the plaintiff is that while she and her two married sisters (defendants 2 and 3) were living in the houses of their respective husbands, defendant No. 1 persuaded Raibu Mohanta to transfer Ac. 3.40 dec. of land already covered under the dead of gift, in favour of defendants 5 and 6 who are her brother's sons. However, defendants 5 and 6 never possessed the said lands. It is asserted that all those transfers by Raibu are invalid and inoperative and all the properties covered under the invalid transfers continued to be joint family properties. Hence the suit for partition claiming one-fourth share in respect of the properties of Raibu Mohanta who had died in the year 1973. It is further alleged that after the death of Raibu Mohanta, defendant No. 1 managed the family affairs. The plaintiff demanded partition and on such demand, defendant No. 1 divided the immovable properties and gave Ac. 4.93 decimals of land in mauza Belaposi to the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 as per 'Kha' Schedule of the plaint. While the plaintiff was in possession of her portion of lands in mauza Belaposi, defendant No. 1 persuaded the plaintiff to get the lands cultivated through defendants 5 and 6 on payment of Rs. 100.00 annually on 'Thika' basis. Defendants 5 and 6 wanted her to execute document for cultivation of land on 'Thika' basis and the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 came to Keonjhar to execute such a document. Defendants 5 and 6 got a document from her executed in respect of Ac. 1. 97 dec. of land in mauza Belaposi as described in Schedule 'Una', Subsequently, she learnt about the same and approached Badapalas Grama Panchayat members complaining about the fraudulent nature of the transaction. Defendants 5 and 6, however, did not agree to the suggestion for an amicable settlement and the plaintiff executed a registered deed of cancellation on 4-6-1974. The plaintiff further alleged that the buffalo which had been given towards her share was kept in the custody of defendants 1, 5 and 6. Subsequently, the aforesaid defendants did not deliver the buffalo for which she has claimed damages. The house property has been described in Schedule "China" of the plaint. On the aforesaid a legations she claimed for partition of properties in respect of 'Ka', 'Kha' and 'Chha' Schedules and allotment of one-fourth share with a specific prayer for adjustment of 'Una' Scheduled properties in her share. She has prayed for damages to the tune of Rs. 700.00.