DEBAHARI BEHERA (DEAD) AND OTHERS Vs. DHRUBA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title, declaration that the sale deeds dated 1963 and 25.3.1981 are null and void, recovery of possession in the event he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff is that he is the natural born son of Dandasi Behera. His father died on 24.198 Dandasi sold all his ancestral properties and house to Arakhit Behera maternal uncle of Dandasi by means of a registered sale deed dated 3.11956. Arakhit had no issue. He adopted plaintiff and executed a deed of adoption on 11.1957. Arakhit was addicted to liquor. Apprehending that the properties will be squandered away, he executed a nominal sale deed dated 1963 in respect of Schedule-A properties in favour of his nephew Bika Behera, father of defendant no.1 at the instance of later. No consideration was paid, nor possession was delivered to Bika. While the matter stood thus, Bika executed a "Panchayat Haka Tyaga Patra" (deed of relinquishment) in favour of the plaintiff admitting the adoption of the plaintiff and execution of nominal sale deed. Defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest. They created disturbance over the possession of the plaintiff. In the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C between the parties, the defendants 2 and 3 claimed to have purchased Item No.1 of Schedule-B land and defendant no.5 claimed to have purchased Item No.2 of Schedule-B land from defendant no.1 by means of registered sale deeds. Defendant no.1 also claimed that his father Bika purchased Schedule-A land from Arakhit by means of a registered sale deed dated 1963. The sale deeds being devoid of consideration are void.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Arakhit. The deed of adoption is void and inoperative. The sale deed is genuine and supported by consideration. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. After sale, Bika was in possession of the suit land. Thereafter, defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit land. He is not aware of any deed of relinquishment. The same is tailor-made. He sold the suit land to defendant nos.2, 3 and 5 and delivered possession. A part of the suit land has been settled in favour of his father Bika under the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act ("OEA Act") .