CHAKRADHAR PANDA Vs. PERMANANDA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff assails the affirming judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Khdura in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession, if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he and defendant nos.1 to 4 are brothers. Defendant no.5 is his wife. The suit property is their ancestral property. It was recorded in the name of their father, Hatanath Panda. During the life time of father, there was a partition of the property. A registered deed of partition was executed on 30.9.1975. The suit land fell to the share of his mother, Sarai Dei. Ac.1.995 decimals of land fell to the share of his father. After partition, his mother resided in his house. He was in possession of the suit land. His mother gifted the suit land to defendant no.2 by means of a registered gift deed dated 8.9.1982. His father died in the year 1981. Thereafter the parties decided to partition the land fell to the share of their parents. They decided that the share of mother, which was gifted by her to defendant no.2, would be allotted to the plaintiff. All the five brothers would maintain their mother by paying two bags of paddy annually and Rs.10/- per month each. There was an understanding between the parties that they will partition the properties again. The defendant nos.1 to 4 scribed the deed. He signed on the deed in a good faith without understanding the contents. At the time of registration of the partition deed on 13.12.1982, it was brought to his notice that the suit land was not allotted to him. The same was distributed amongst defendant nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. He raised objection to the registration of the said partition deed. Accordingly, it was decided that another agreement would be executed, in which the right, title and interest of the defendants in respect of the suit property would be relinquished exclusively in his favour. An agreement to that effect was scribed and executed on the same day. Defendant no.5 did not sign on the document as it was felt unnecessary since the plaintiff was getting the entire suit land under the agreement. The aforesaid agreement could not be registered due to want of time. He became the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. When defendant nos.1 to 4 created disturbance in his possession, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant nos.1 to 4 filed written statement pleading inter alia that there was partition of all the properties by metes and bounds on 13.12.1982. Specific shares were allotted to each including defendant no.5. The partition deed was scribed in presence of the parties. It was registered on the same day. Since then the parties are in possession of their respective shares. The so called agreement is manipulated. The same is not a deed of relinquishment. The agreement was invalid due to want of registration. The plaintiff has not acquired any title. Defendant No.5 wife of the plaintiff, filed a separate written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff.