AMRUTI DEI Vs. SARADAMONI DEI
LAWS(ORI)-1950-1-5
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 04,1950

Amruti Dei Appellant
VERSUS
Saradamoni Dei Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PANIGRAHI, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by defendant 3 in a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that the alienation made by the mother of the plaintiff is invalid and for possession of the lands described in sch. 'Ga' attached to the plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiff Saradamoni Dei is the daughter of one Bhola Nath Singh who died leaving a widow by name Ushamoni and two daughters, viz., the plaintiff and another who is now dead. The widow Ushamoni died in the year 1944 leaving the plaintiff as the Bole surviving heir of Bhola Nath. Defendant , who is the appellant before us, purchased the properties described in Soh. 'Ga' from Ushamoni by a sale deed dated 18 -8 37 (EX. A) for BS. 170. The alleged purpose of this sale was the payment of a debt contracted by Ushamoni from one Anangabhim for the marriage of her second daughter, and to pay off arrears of rent on those lands. 3. Admittedly the properties stood in the name of Ushamoni and her name had been recorded in the Current Settlement Khatian(hhatas Nos. 99 and 102) as proved by Exs. D and D.i. The properties in suit are covered by three Bale deeds, viz., Ex. B dated 35 -7.10 (a kebala executed by one Aprati Gharan Singh in favour of Ushamoni); Ex. B -l dated 7 7 -1915 (a kebala executed by Mana Singh in favour of Ushamoni); and EX. B 2 (a kebala executed by Pranasruahna and his brother Brundaban in favour of Ushamoni) dated 3 -11 -1915. All these documents had been obtained in Ushamomi's name when her husband was working in danger in the Central Provinces.
(3.) THE learned Munsif who tried the suit in the first instance held that Uahamoni was only a benamidar for her husband and that the real title to these properties rested with Bholanath. He, however, found that the alienation made by the widow under EX. A, dated 18th August 1937 was justified by legal necessity and accordingly upheld the sale in favour of the appellant. He also found that a sum of Rs. 170 had actually been paid by the appellant to Ushamoni as consideration for Ex. A. He relied upon the evidence adduced by D. ws.2 and 4 to the effect that Ushamoni was pressed by necessity on account of the expenses incurred by her for the marriage of her second daughter. He also accepted the testimony of the witnesses that the income from Bholanath'a estate gradually dwindled on account of failure of crops and nonpayment of rent so that she could hardly make both ends meet. The learned Munsif observed: ''There is nothing unnatural if she had no read; and enough funds to meet the expenses of her daughter's marriage and for that purpose she seems to have borrowed from Anangabhim and to repay that debt she made the alienation in favour of defendant 3.' He accordingly recorded his finding that ' there is convincing evidence that to repay that debt she made the alienation under Ex. A and as such it was lor legal necessity and the plaintiff mut be bound by it.' ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.