ANTERYAMI SAHOO Vs. APURBE DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Talcher decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the disputed properties and further for declaration that defendant No.3 is not the adopted son of defendant No. 1.

(2.) Plaintiff's case is, defendant No. 1 Ramachandra and she herself are the successors of their father Khageswar. Khageswar had an elder brother and a younger brother named ' Baidhar and Sridhar respectively. Harihar, defendant No. 7 represents the branch of Baidhar. From the genealogy it is found ' that -Sridhar's 'son Adhikari is shown to have been adopted. The sons of Adhikari are defendants 5 and 6. It is claimed that, plaintiff is. deaf and dumb from birth and defendant No. 1 is an idiot having no mental stability. Taking advantage of this physical and mental deficiency, defendants 4, 5 and 7 possessed the suit lands till 1977. Defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1976 in the court of Additional Munsif, Talcher to get back possession of the properties from the defendants. It is the further case that defendant No. 2 and others by practising fraud and/or misrepresentation and undue influence managed to comprise the suit with defendant No. 1 who had no power of understanding. The said suit was decreed on 31.1.1977 on the basis of the compromise petition dated 27.1.1977 and the plaintiff was never a'party to the compromise nor she had authorised any body to Act and sign on her behalf.

(3.) On 12.9.1977 the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. in the said suit to set aside arid compromise decree dated 31.1.1977 and to treat the suit as pending from the stage .from where the compromise decree was carried on. Though this was allowed, the plaintiff filed the present for the reliefs stated above.