BHIMSEN MAHAPATRA Vs. RAMACHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for possession of 2.89 acres of land in Khata 158 in Mouza Eaikera. His case is that the suit lands which originally stood recorded in the name of a deity, Guru Grantha Sabeb, were put up for sale in execution of a rent decree and were purchased by defendant 6, Padma Matha, on 26th April 1937 for Rs. 72; that the appellant (plaintiff) purchased the same from defendant 6 by a registered sale-deed, dated 18th August 1941, for a sum of Rs. 200 and that he was disturbed in the possession by defendants 1 to 5. Defendant 1 is the main con-testing defendant and defendants 2 to 5 are his tenants. Page 1 of 4 Bhimsen Mahapatra vs. Ramachandra Das and Ors. (27.10.1949 - ORIHC)

(2.) The case of defendant 1 is that an ancestor of his Mahant Saheb Ram Das, gifted 57 of acre in plots 275 of the suit lands to one Madhusudan Tripathy. Bat neither the said Madhusudan nor his son Chintamoni paid the rent due to the zamindar. Defendant is Guru Mahant Madhab Das deliberately defaulted in payment of the rent and induced the landlord to file a shit for arrears of rent. A rent suit was accordingly filed and in execution of the rent decree the entire holding measuring 2.89 acres was put up for sale and Mahant Madhab Das who succeeded Saheb Bam Das purchased the same in the name of defendant 6, Padma Matha, who was residing in the Math and who, it is said, was in the active confidence of Madhab Das. The point for decision is whether the purchase by Padma Matha was for the benefit of the Mahant and whether she was really a benamidar for the judgment-debtors against whom the rent decree was obtained. The Courts below were largely influenced by the fact that there was some evidence that defendant 6, Padma Matha, was residing in the Math prior to the date of the sale, for about 15 to 20 years, and that she was enjoying the confidence of the late Mahant Madhab Daa. In fact defendant 1, the present Mahant, giving evidence as D. W, 6 deposed that she was the late Mahant's mistress. This fact appears to have coloured the view of both Courts below and in appreciating the evidence on this point they have come to the conclusion that in all probability the sale in the name of Padma Matha was benami for the benefit of the late Mahant Madhab Das.

(3.) In second appeal, Mr. M. S. Rao appear, ing for the plaintiff-appellant has attached the funding of the Oourts below as contrary to the evidence and the bulk of his argument centres round the suggestion that the evidence falls far short of making out a case of benami sale; that this is at least consistent with the late Mahant's desire to benefit defendant 6 by providing for her future maintenance; and that the defendant should not be heard to allege his own fraud in bringing about the rent suit and the subsequent sale and should not be permitted to take advantage of his fraud.