LAXMIDHAR NAIK Vs. SRIDHAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 25-2-1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, karanjia in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1986 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1985 passed by the learned Munsif Karanjia in Title Suit No. 13 of 1983 are assailed in the Second Appeal filed by the defendants of the said suit.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the suit are as follows : the respondents as plaintiff, filed Title suit No. 13 of 1983 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction with other consequential reliefs. The disputed lands appertaining to Khata no. 4 of Khadipal mouza in the district of mayurbhanj. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 inherited the said property from their mother krushna Dehury. On 30-9-1974 defendants 6 and 7 sold the suit lands by a registered sale deed to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and delivered possession thereof. In the year 1975 the plaintiff raised paddy on the land. But then, defendant No. 1 and father of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 forcibly removed the paddy, consequently a proceeding was initiated under Section 379, IPC in the Court of learned SDJM, Karanjia. During pendency of the said case, the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos. 6 and 7 subsequently cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation on 9-10-1974. Thereafter the said defendants had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2. On the strength of the said sale deed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created disturbances and out and removed the paddy. On coming to know about the said fact, plaintiff filed the suit. After receiving notice, written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 6 and 7 taking the stand that no right, title and interest passed to the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30-9-1974 as the plaintiff failed to pay the consideration amount. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 thereafter cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation and sold the land to the defendant No. 1 and mother of defendant Nos. 2 and 5.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, six issues were framed by the trial Court. To substantiate the case, plaintiff got examined four witnesses and exhibited three documents. Defendants got examined six witnesses and exhibited three documents.