MAHIMA Vs. DINABANDHU MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title On the basis of a purchase of the disputed land with an area 0.42 acre out of the total acreage of 0.66 appertaining to Plot No. 901 and for confirmation of possession. The plaintiffs' version is that Luxmidhar Mohanty was the original ancestor of the parties to whom the property belonged. Luxmidhar had three sons: Chakradhar, who died a bachelor prior to the final publication of the Current Settlement record-of-rights Dinabandhu (defendant No.1) and Krupasin-dhu, the deceased husband of Kshetramoni (defendant No. 4). Luxmidhar died prior to 1930, and his widow died on 21st January 1949. Krupasindhu however had died in the year 1940 leaving behind him his widow Kshetramoni. Defendants 2 and 3 are the transferees from defendant No. 1, Dinabandhu, son of Lukmidhar. The suit property stood in the name of Krupasindhu in the current settlement record-of-rights.

(2.) The plaintiffs' version that defendant No. 1 was adopted away to another family has been negatived by both the Courts below and for the rest of the judgment it is to be that defendant No. 1 is the son of Luxmidhar.

(3.) Krupasindhu mortgaged the property in dispute in favour of the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 on the basis of a mortgage transaction (Ext. A) dated 19th June 1933. After the death of Krupasindhu, the plaintiffs' version is, his widow Kshetramoni, however, sold 0.44 acre of land including the disputed land, which is 0.42 acre by virtue of a sale-deed (Ext. B) dated 31st January 1941 in favour of plaintiff No. 1, the deity. This transaction of sale was in satisfaction of the previous mortgage executed by Krupasindhu in favour of the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Plaintiff No. 1, the deity, is represented by the other two plaintiffs.