NRUSINGHANATH DEB Vs. BANAMALI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a reversing judgment of the learned subordinate Judge, Puri in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for other reliefs.

(2.) THE case made out by the plaintiffs was that the suit properties along with certain other properties belonged to the deity Sri Nrusingnanath Deb. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the predecessors of the defendants were in possession of such properties as marfat-dars. For convenience of possession, the marfatdars had divided the properties of the deity among themselves and in such division the suit properties came to be allotted to the share of Ananda Panda, father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Ananda's eldest son Agadhu died issueless. Taking advantage of a dispute between late Agadu Panda and plaintiff No. 2 (plaintiff No. 3 was a minor then)Bhagaban Panda, uncle of defendant No. 1 obtained a permanent lease in respect of the disputed properties in the names of himself and his brother Banchhanidhi, father of defendant No. 1. This lease was not acted upon and was a fraudulent one. Notwithstanding the fraudulent character of the lease deed : defendant No. 1 created trouble in respect of the disputed properties. At the instance of certain well-wishers it was settled that plaintiffs 2 and 3 would purchase the right of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 300 and in pursuance of such arrangement defendant No. 1 executed and registered the sale deed Ext. A dated 19-5-60 and received the entire consideration of Rs. 300. But the original sale deed Ext. A was kept with him and later defendant No. 1 brought a false criminal case against plaintiffs 2 and 3 on the allegation that they had plucked cocoanuts from the suit land. Though there was an acquittal in the criminal case, the plaintiffs in order to remove the cloud from their title have filed the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 4, 6 to 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 19 supported the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 actually contested the litigation. His case was that late Banchhanidhi Panda and Bhagaban Panda obtained a permanent lease of the suit properties from plaintiff No. 2 late Agadhu Panda and their mother Jamuna by a registered deed of lease on payment of salami for the purpose of the deity. Defendant No. 1 as the sole surviving heir of Ban-mali and Banchhanidhi has been in possession of the leasehold. In order to purchase other properties defendant No. 1 agreed to alienate the suit properties to plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 for, a consideration of Rs. 300 and it was further agreed that the consideration money would be paid by plaintiffs nos. 2 and 3 to defendant No. 1 at the time of endorsing the registration ticket in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and delivery of possession of the suit properties would be given to plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 then Accordingly the sale deed Ext. A was executed and registered by defendant No. 1. As plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 failed to pay the consideration money defendant No. 1 did not endorse the registration ticket in their favour and executed a cancellation deed Ext. C on 6-1-61. Defendant No. 1 has been in possession throughout and no title has been acquired under Ext. A by plaintiffs 2 and 3.