SARA DEI Vs. KAMADEV PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was filed for declaration that the sale deeds dated 29.1.1975 in respect of 'Ka'and 'Kha' Schedule lands are fraudulent, invalid and without consideration and for delivery of possession.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is as follows : The disputed properties were the joint family properties of her husband Rama Swain and elder brother Bikala Swain. After the death of Bikala, her husband remained as the 'Karta' of the family. Both the brothers had purchased certain other properties. After the death of plaintiff's husband in the year 1961, her nephew Kantha managed the property as 'Karta' of the joint family. The plaintiff did not have any children. Defendant No. 3, the wife of defendant No. 1, so being treated as her god-daughter and the plaintiff had full confidence in her. Defendant No. 1 persuaded the plainttiff to adopt defendant No. 2 and promised that a house would be constructed for plaintiff aftet purchasing new land. Defendant No. 1 also advised her to separate from her nephew and for the said purpose persuaded her to execute a power-of-attorney. In the garb of taking the power-of-attorney, actually two sale deeds were obtained from the plaintiff. The sale deeds had not been read over and explained to the plaintiff and no consideration had been paid. The documents were clandestinely registered at Kendrapara even though the property was within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar's Office at Marshaghai and for the aforesaid purpose a false document was obtained from one Kamadeb Jena in the name of the plaintiff in respect of one kadi of land by a document dated 25.1.1975 and the said land was again shown to have been sold in the sale deed dated 29.1.1975. It was pleaded that defendants 1 to 3 did not derive any right, title and interest under the sale deeds

(3.) Defendants 4 to 7 got themselves impleaded as parties in the said suit by filing application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., claiming that they had purchased some of the disputed lands from defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 1 to 3 have filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded by them that the plaintiff, who was the owner of the disputed lands, was in need of money for repayment of loan and for the aforesaid purpose, two sale deeds had been executed on 29.1.1975. It was further pleaded that apart from defendants 4 to 7, there were certain other purchasers from defendants 1 to 3 in respect of some portions of the disputed land and the suit was not maintainable in the absence of such purchasers. It was further pleaded that the sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 3 were supported by consideration and had been duly executed.