LINGARAJ @ LINGA NAYAK AND ANOTHER Vs. ABHIMANYU BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant nos.1 and 2 are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and set aside the order of mutation passed by the Tahasildar in Mutation Case No.78 of 1983. The case of the plaintiff is that one Basudev Naik was the original owner of the suit land. He died leaving behind him two sons, namely, Lingaraj @ Linga Nayak and Nisakara Nayak, defendant nos.1 and After death of Basudev, defendant nos. 1 and 2 inherited the suit property. The suit land fell to the share of defendant no.2 in the partition. He sold the same to one A.Laxman Patra, defendant no.4 and his wife, A.Surama Patra, defendant no.3 by means of two registered sale deeds dated 18.7.1963 and 11.1.1965 respectively for valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. Defendant no.4 purchased the suit land in favour of his wife. On 30.6.1969 defendant no.4 sold the said land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed for valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The suit plot had been recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the record of right. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 was an attesting witness in both the sale deeds. He had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land. But then, on the report of the Social Welfare Extension Officer, Tikabali, the S.D.O., Baliguda initiated O.L.R. Case No.27 of 1977 against him under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act ("O.L.R.Act") . Defendant nos.1 and 4 were parties to the said proceedings. After due enquiry, the S.D.O., Baliguda dropped the case on 7.11979 holding that the case is not maintainable. Against the said order, defendant no.1 filed appeal before the A.D.M., Phulbani. By order dated 21.8.1981, the appellate authority directed to restore the suit plots in favour of defendant no.1. According to the plaintiff, the sale transactions were effected before coming into operation of the O.L.R.Act. The A.D.M. had no jurisdiction to pass the order. With this factual scenario, the suit was instituted seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of defendant no.1 was that the suit property was the joint property of defendant nos. 1 and 2. The same had not been partitioned. Defendant no.2 had no exclusive right to sell the said land. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 mortgaged their kitchen garden to defendant nos.3 and 4. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 had fraudulently obtained their signatures on the sale deeds. Neither consideration was paid, nor delivery of possession was made. They are scheduled caste persons. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 do not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. No permission was accorded by the revenue authority for alienation of the land. The alienation was null and void. The A.D.M. had rightly passed the order. He is in possession of the suit land. The civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.