TABHA BERIHANI Vs. PRAFULLA CHANDRA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in Money Suit No. 10 of 1980 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Patnagarh, presently designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patnagarh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree whereby the plain tiff'suit for money on the basis of document, Ext. 1 (which the trial Court termed as pro-notes) has been decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in short, is that the defendant being in need of money approached the plaintiff for a loan to which the plaintiff agreed and advanced a sum of Rs. 9,000/- with an understanding that she would transfer her land by registered sale deed after obtaining necessary permission from the revenue authorities. As a matter of fact, defendant made application to the S.D.O., Patnagarh, seeking necessary permission as required under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, but no permission was accorded since defendant's daughter raised objection the proposed sale. In view of such objection being raised, plaintiff obtained the document. Ext. 1 wherein the defendant promised to return back the whole amount. Plantiff then demanded for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,000/- but it was not heeded to. This led the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of the said amount.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement and denied to have incurred loan of Rs. 9.000/- from the plaintiff, as alleged. She. however, admitted that she had agreed to transfer certain land to the plaintiff, but since she belongs to scheduled tribe and prior permission of the revenue authority was necessary to effect transfer, the plaintiff brought her to Patnagarh and obtained her signatures on various papers, including the suit document. Ext. 1. Neither the contents were read over and explained to her nor she was made aware of the nature of the documents. On objection being raised by her daughter in the permission proceeding, the revenue authority refused to grant permission whereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for realisation of Rs. 9,000/- alleging that the same had been advanced to her as interest free loan. Besides the above, the defendant has also urged that the suit is barred by limitation.