JAMI KANYAKUMARI DEVI Vs. GOPIRAM AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted Title Suit No.67 of 1989 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ganjam- Gajapati, Berhampur for Specific Performance of Contract. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit house was the ancestral property of J.Badrinarayana Prusty, husband of defendant no.1 and others. In a family partition of the year 1959, the house was allotted to him. He executed a registered settlement deed settling half share in favour of his wife-defendant no.1 and half share in favour of his minor sons in the year 1968. Defendant no.1 was the mother guardian of her minor sons, defendants 2 to 4. To press her legal necessity, she entered into a registered deed of agreement on 11.9.1984 with the plaintiff to sell the suit house for consideration of Rs.50,000/- and accepted Rs.10,000/- towards advance. The deed was registered. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed shall be registered within two years on receipt of the balance consideration. The plaintiff requested defendant no.1 many a times to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. She had also sent a registered notice and telegrams to her. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to her, she had not entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit house nor received any advance amount. Her husband and the plaintiff colluded together and took her signatures and thumb impression on the document telling her that the document was about partition of the property for providing maintenance to her and her children. She is a pardanasin lady. She was not aware of the contents of the document. Defendants 2 to 4 filed separate written statement. It was pleaded that the suit property was ancestral property. They being the coparceners the agreement for sale of the property was invalid. Their father was alive. He was the natural guardian. Defendant no.1 had no right to enter into an agreement to sell the suit property. There was no legal necessity in the family. So, there was no occasion for sale of the suit property in the interest of the family and the minors.