KASTURA SAHUANI Vs. DAS SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 2 has preferred this appeal against the decision of the District Judge. Bolangir-Kalahandi in so far as it relates to Title Appeal No. 47 of 1973.

(2.) One Laxman Sahu died after coming into effect, of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is the widow of the said Laxman Sahu. Defendant No. 1 executed the registered sale deed Ext. 1 dated 10-1-1966 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 2.16 of land out of the properties which devolved on him and his mother, defendant No. 2, on the death of his father. The above facts are not disputed.

(3.) The plaintiff's case in short is that : Defendant No. 1 succeeded to the properties of his father after the death of Laxman and he (D. 1) remained in possession of the same and was functioning as the karta and manager of the said joint family properties. Defendant No. 1, for legal necessity of the family as well as for the benefit of the estate, sold the suit land (Ac. 2.16), described in the schedule attached to the plaint, by a registered sale deed dated 10-1-1966 for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/- to the plaintiff. Since after the execution of the sale deed possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and he continued to cultivate the same on his own right. In 1967 defendant No. 2 initiated a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and in accordance with the incorrect decision in that proceeding she is in possession of the suit land. Hence this suit.