MST. URMILA SAHU Vs. DAMBARU SWAIN AND ORS.
LAWS(ORI)-1973-10-5
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on October 19,1973

Mst. Urmila Sahu Appellant
VERSUS
Dambaru Swain And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.K.Ray, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is stated below : The suit properties originally belonged to Somenath who died leaving behind him two sons Sukru and Satyabadi. On the death of Sukru, his widow Ahalya remarried Satyabadi and Satyabadi possessed all the properties in suit. Plaintiff is the daughter of Satyabadi through his first wife Maya who had been driven out by Satyabadi when Plaintiff was an infant. Maya, after she was driven out by Satyabadi remarried another. Satyabadi died twenty years prior to the suit. On the death of Satyabadi, Ahalya possessed the suit properties till she died in 1965. On Ahalya 's death, Plaintiff succeeded to the suit properties left by Satyabadi. After Ahalya 's death, when the Plaintiff went to possess the suit properties, the Defendants prevented her on a false plea that Defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of Satyabadi and that Defendant No. 8 got a portion of the suit properties under a gift. The, deeds of gift and adoption set up by the Defendants ate forged ones. Further, Defendant No. 1 taking advantage of his relationship with Ahlya got some documents from her in favour of his (Defendant No. 1) wife (Defendant No. 4) and his (Defendant No. 1) minor sons (Defendant Nos. 5 and 6). Under these documents, an area of 13.74 acres of suit lands are alleged to have been sold by Ahalya to Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. With these allegations the Plaintiff instituted the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Defendant No. 7 remained ex parte. The other Defendants filed three different written statements even though their defence is common., The defence taken by these Defendants is as follows : Satyabadi had only one wife. viz. Ahalya. The Plaintiff is not the daughter of Satyabadi. Defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Satyabadi and Ahalya. On 12 -8 -1938 Satyabadi and Ahalya executed a document acknowledging Defendant No. 1 's adoption. On the death of Satyabadi, Defendant No. 1 as his adopted son possessed all the properties in suit left by Satyabadi. On the very same day, when the deed acknowledging the adoption was executed, Satyabadi out of his own free will by a gift deed, gifted away 11.24 acres of suit lands in favour of Defendant No. 8 who, as a donee under the gift, is possessing the properties covered by it. For necessity, Ahalya and Defendant No. 1 sold 13.74 acres out of the suit lands, to Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 for Rs. 6, 000/ - by a registered sale deed dated 10 -8 -1964 and since then Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are in possession of ' the lands purchased by them. Satyabadi and Ahalya surrendered suit plot Nos. 896 and 897/993 to the Lambardar on 16 -1 -1927. After the surrender, the Lambardar leased out the plots to the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by executing a patta. Since the date of the patta, the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the same. Thereafter, plot No. 681 was transferred to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who have been recorded in respect of the same. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 7 have perfected their title to plot Nos. 681, 896 and 897/993 by possessing them peacefully and continuously for more than the statutory period.
(3.) THE trial Court has found that the Plaintiff is the daughter of Satyabadi through his first wife, Maya. P.ws. 1 to 4 have supported the Plaintiff 's case on this point. D.ws. 2 and 7, have also admitted the Plaintiff to be the daughter of Satyabadi through a wife other than Ahalya. Learned Counsel for Defendants in the trial Court conceded as appears from the impugned judgment that Plaintiff is the daughter of Satyabadi. The Respondents before me also do not challenge the Plaintiff 's status as the daughter/of Satyabadi. Hence, I accept the finding of the trial Court that Plaintiff is the daughter of Satyabadi through his wife, Maya.;


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