HAREKRUSHNA PATNAIK Vs. DAMODAR BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in appeal against a decree of affirmance.

(2.) The suit lands originally belonged to one Pandab Rout. On 5-11-55, he executed a sale deed in respect of the same in favour of defendant No. 1 Damodar Biswal who was then a minor. Defendant No. 2 Nilamani Biswal, acting as the father-guardian of defendant No. 1, sold the suit lands to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 7-11-62, for a consideration of Rs. 250/-. On 21-12-67, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and damages. In the alternative, they prayed for a decree for refund of consideration together with interest at the rate of 12 par cent par annum. Their contention was that defendant No. 2 was the real owner of the suit lands and that defendant No. 1 was only a name lender under the sale deed dated 5-11-55, executed by Pandab Rout. Their further contention was that while they were in possession of the suit lands, they were dispossessed from the same on 15-12-56. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1, on attaining majority, sold the suit lands to defendant No. 3 by a registered sale deed dated 15-11-70.

(3.) Defendants denied the plea of benami. They asserted that defendant No. 1 was the real owner of the suit lands and that the plaintiffs never possessed the same by virtue of the sale deed dated 7-11-62. They challenged the validity of the sale deed and denied the passing consideration thereunder.