MAHESWAR DAS Vs. SAKHI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title in regard to the C schedule property and for further declaration that the sale deed dated 5-10-1966 (Ext. K) is void, illegal and not binding against the plaintiff, is carried against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack.

(2.) Plaintiff filed the suit on 18-11-1968 claiming that Sudarsan was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6. The third defendant was the only son of Sudarsan and Subasi- the wife of defendant No. 7 was also the lone daughter of Sudarsan. Plaintiff is the only daughter through Jhumani, the first wife of defendant No. 3 while defendants 4 to 6 are the three sons of defendant No. 3 through his second wife Indira. The B schedule property belonged to one Kurup Behera, plaintiff's mother's father. Plaintiff's mother succeeded to the properties left by Kurup. Jhumani died around 1938, when the plaintiff was about five years old. On Jhumani's death, the plaintiff became the owner of the property, but she being a minor the properties were managed and looked after by her father. When defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the property, plaintiff came to learn, upon enquiry, that the third defendant as her guardian during her minority executed several sham and nominal sale deeds. The first of these sale deeds was one dated 8th of March, 1948. In favour of defendant No. 7. On 5-6-1964, defendant No. 7 executed a sale deed in favour of defendants 4 to 6 for the entire C schedule property except plot No. 14 having an area of five decimals only. On 5-10-66 defendants 4 to 6 through their father guardian conveyed the aforesaid property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 1,800. Plaintiff asserts that in spite of these transactions she continues to be in peaceful possession. Plaintiff alleged that the sale was void and she being still in possession was entitled to relief.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while defendants 3 and 7 filed two separate written statements. The main defence was that the suit as laid was not maintainable and it was barred by limitation. It was further maintained that the sale by defendant No. 3 was for legal necessity and benefit of the minor and defendants were in possession of the property for more than the statutory period and had perfected their title by adverse possession.