LAWS(ORI)-1959-2-4

NETRAMANI DEBI Vs. LAKHMINARAYAN KAR

Decided On February 02, 1959
NETRAMANI DEBI Appellant
V/S
LAKHMINARAYAN KAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF files this appeal against the confirming judgment of Sri T. V. Rao, additional District Judge of Puri dismissing her suit for a declaration that the adoption of defendant No. 1 was not true and valid.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant Netramani Debi and defendant No. 3 Suryamani Devi are the daughters of Taluchha Brundaban Mohapatro and his wife is defendant No. 2 lakshmi Dibya. Brundaban was the sebayat of the temple of Shri Jagannath of Puri and he died on 3-9-43. Lakhmi Dibya succeeded to his properties and according to the plaintiffs case, defendant No. 1 Lakshminarayan Kar, natural son of Lokenath kar, had been set up as the adopted son of the deceased Brundaban Mohapatra by obtaining a fraudulent deed of adoption from the widow of Brundaban on 29-9-43 and registered on 3-11-43 by Lokenath Kar. Two sale deeds were executed by the widow in respect of her husband's property in favour of her daughters, the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, on 29-9-43 for discharging loans incurred for the Sudhi expenses of her husband, but in these documents also she was fraudulently described as the mother guardian of defendant No. 1 who was described as the adopted son of Brundaban Mohapatra and it is the plaintiff's case that this fraud was not known to the widow and her daughters till 12-8-50 as the documents were in custody of Mohan Mohanty, the power-of-attorney holder of the widow. The plaintiff's case further is that she was a minor when the document was executed and after attaining majority she filed the suit within three years to declare the alleged adoption invalid and that it never took place as there was never any adoption of defendant No. 1; and that the documents executed by the widow were invalid and inoperative against her.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 supported the plaintiff's case in toto. Defendant No. 2 alleged that she never executed any deed of adoption in favour of defendant No. 1 nor executed the kabalas as his mother guardian, but that those documents were obtained fraudulently by her husband's agnates as she was required to execute a power-of-attorney for the management of her properties. They denied also knowledge of the fraud committed till recently.