NIRANJAN PANDA Vs. SUSILA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that Udayanath Routray, father of defendant no.2, sold the suit property to defendant no.3 by means of a registered sale deed in the year 1959 and delivered possession to him. Defendant no.3 constructed a house thereon after approval of the building plan by the Municipality and stayed there. He used to pay the land revenue and municipal taxes. Thereafter defendant no.3 alienated A0.170 dec. of land to plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and A0.100 dec. of land to plaintiff no.3 by means of two registered sale deeds in the year 1964 for valid consideration and delivered possession to them. They are paying tax regularly. The land has been recorded in their names in the current settlement operation. After due enquiry, the settlement authority had carved out two new plots for the purchasers. The suit properties had been given on rent to different tenants. The sons of plaintiff nos.1 and 3 are residing in the house over the suit land.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed written statement-cum-counter claim. The case of defendant no.1 is that the suit land originally belonged to Udayanath Routray, father of defendant no.2. Udayanath Routray had not sold the land to defendant no. Defendant no.3 managed to execute a fictitious sale deed through an imposter. The specific case of defendant no.1 is that defendant no.2 succeeded the suit property after death of his father. The suit land was recorded in his name in the R.O.R. published in the year 1962. Defendant no.2 used to pay rent to ex-landlord Sri Sri Lingaraj Mahaprabhu up till 1974. The estate vested in the State. Thereafter he paid rent to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. To press his legal necessity, he alienated the land in favour of defendant no.1 on 29.10.1980 by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. The sale deed in favour of defendant no.3 is fictitious. Neither signature nor L.T.I. of Udayanath Routray appeared in the Siha Register maintained in the office of Sub- Registrar. The registered sale deed no.10589 of 1959 was the outcome of malpractice. Defendant no.3 was not in possession of the land at any point of time. With this factual scenario, he prayed to declare the sale deed nos.10589 of 1959, 6353 of 1964 and 6354 of 1964 are void, defendant no.3 and plaintiffs have no title over the suit land and further declaration that the sale deed dated 29.10.1980 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defended no.1 is valid. Defendant no.2 filed written statement supporting the stand of defendant no.1.