SHANKARSHAN PANDA Vs. KRUSHNA DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration that recording of the suit schedule land jointly in the names of Kinei Dhani and Benu Dhani in the M.S. ROR is wrong, defendant has no title over the same and permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule land was a part of Khata No.142, Plot No.48, Ac.3.44 dec. The same belonged to Akadashi Patra, Sankhali Patra and Arjuni Patra. The suit land fell to the share of Arjuni in the partition. Arjuni alienated an area of Ac.3.44 dec. to Kinei Dhani by means of a registered sale deed dated 15.4.1944. Kinei was in possession of the suit land. He sold an area of Ac.1.50 dec. out of Ac.3.44 dec. to one Bairagi Nath and delivered possession. Kinei alienated the rest of the land of Ac.1.94 dec. (suit land) to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 26.4.1974 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession to him. The suit land has been recorded as Plot No.68 Ac.1.79 dec. in the major settlement. The plaintiff is in possession of the same. He used to raise paddy crops. The defendant has no semblance of title over the same. The suit land has been wrongly recorded in the names of Kinei and Benu-father of defendant.

(3.) Defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendant was that Kinei and Benu are sons of Sudarsan. Kinei is the elder brother of Benu. Benu died in the year 1969 while he was in joint mess and property with Kinei. He is the son of Benu. After death of his father, he was in joint mess and property with Kinei. Kinei was the karta of the family. Kinei and Benu had enough joint family property. Out of the income of the joint family, Kinei purchased Ac.44 dec. of land appertaining to Khata No.48 from Arjuni. The consideration was paid from out of the income of the joint family property. The sale deed was executed in favour of Kinei, since he was the karta of the family. Kinei and Benu jointly possessed the land. They appropriated usufructs jointly. Kinei and Benu had eight annas share in the suit land. Kinei had transferred Ac.1.50 dec. to one Bairagi Nath by means of a registered sale deed. The rest Ac.1.79 dec. had been jointly recorded in the name of Kinei and Benu in the major settlement. Kinei was not in a proper state of mind. Plaintiff is the son-in-law of Kinei. Taking advantage of illness of Kinei in the year 1974, the plaintiff got the sale deed executed in his name. Plaintiff exercised undue influence on Kinei. No consideration was paid. The plaintiff has no title over the suit land.