SADHU @ SADHU CHARAN SAHU Vs. SUNASIR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the appeals, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent instituted T.S. No.92 of 1980 for declaration of title over 'B' schedule land, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff was that schedule 'A' land belonged to Jaysingh Sahu. In a family partition between Jaysingh and his brothers, the same fell to the share of Jaysingh in the year 1954. Tulsa was the first wife of Jaysingh. Jaysingh married to Sukun for the second time in the year 1954. Jaysingh died in the year 1964 leaving behind him two widows, Tulsa and Sukun, who inherited schedule 'A' land and possessed the same jointly as tenants-in-common. After death of Jaysingh, dissentions cropped up between the two widows. There was partition of the schedule 'A' land between them. A memorandum of partition was prepared on 25.4.65 in the presence of the witnesses. Sukun signed on the same and Tulsa put her L.T.I. In the said partition, schedule 'B' land fell to the share of Sukun along with two decimals house property of Jaysingh. After partition, both the widows possessed their respective shares of land. To press her legal necessity, Sukun alienated schedule 'B' land to the plaintiff on 21.5.75 by means of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.4,000.00. Possession was duly delivered to him. In Feb., 1976, the land was attached in a proceeding under Sec.145 Crimial P.C. initiated at the instance of the defendant, Sadhu Sahu. The defendant had claimed that he is the adopted son of Tulsa on the basis of a document purported to have been executed by Tulsa on 6.4.65. The deed of adoption was a fabricated one. The defendant is not the adopted son of Tulsa. Tulsa died in the year 1968. The proceeding under Sec.145 Crimial P.C. was terminated in favour of the defendant, for which the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) T.S. No.13 of 1982 was instituted by Sukun Sahoo against Sadhu Sahu for declaration of title over 'B-1', 'D' and 'E' properties, confirmation of possession and recovery of possession in the event she is dispossessed during pendency of the suit and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff was that schedule 'A' land belonged to Jaysingh Sahu. Jaysingh married to Tulsa. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born. She died. There was no issue. In order to keep up the lineage, Jaysingh married to her in the year 1954 according to caste, custom and usage. Jaysingh died in the year 1964 leaving behind him two widows, Tulsa and Sukun. They possessed schedule 'A' land. They were not pulling on well. On the intervention of the local gentries, both of them were separated. A memorandum of partition was prepared on 25.4.65 allotting specific properties in favour of the two widows. In the partition deed, she put her signature. Tulsa put her L.T.I. In the partition, schedule 'B' land fell to her share. Schedule 'B-1' land fell to the share of Tulsa. Both were in possession of their respective shares. Tulsa died in the year 1968. Thereafter, she is residing in 'D' homestead land, which fell to her share. On 1.5.1975, she alienated schedule 'C' land out of schedule 'B' land to Sunasir Sahu by means of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.4,000.00 to press her legal necessity and delivered possession to the vendee. After death of Tulsa, she is in possession of schedule 'E' land, which fell to the share of Tulsa. In Nov., 1980, the defendant, Sadhu Sahu, with the help of others attempted to dispossess her from schedule 'D' and 'E' properties. On enquiry, she came to know that the defendant got an order in a proceeding under Sec.145 Crimial P.C. against Sunasir Sahu and others. She was not a party in the proceeding. Schedule 'D' and 'E' lands were not the subject matter of dispute in the case. After death of Tulsa, the defendant came to possess schedule 'B-1' land except the house standing over schedule 'E' land. She further learnt that the defendant managed to get a document purporting to be a deed of adoption from Tulsa. Tulsa was not in a fit state of mind to execute the deed. The deed is a fabricated one. The defendant is not the adopted son of Tulsa.