SUKADEV SAHOO Vs. BENGA DIBYA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.

(2.) Since the appeal is to be disposed of on a short point, the facts need not be recounted in detail. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffrespondent no.1 instituted T.S. No.203 of 1998 in the court of the learned Additional Munsif, Jajpur for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.2.1972 executed by her in favour of the father of the defendant no.1 is a fraudulent one and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding inter alia that the sale deed is legal and valid. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed T.A. No.44 of 1998 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur, which was allowed.

(3.) The second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.C(iv) of the memorandum of appeal. The same is: