Decided on November 20,1973

Madhabananda Majhi And Anr. Appellant
Mahendra Nath Puthal Respondents


G.K. Misra, C.J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the father -in -law of Petitioner 2. They have been convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 -00 each, in default to undergo R. I. for three months each by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Udala. In appeal the sentence was reduced to Rs. 50 -00 each in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days by the learned Sessions Judge.
(2.) THE disputed land originally belonged to the wife of Petitioner -1. On her death it devolved on two of her minor daughters. On 5th of June, 1961, Petitioner 1 as guardian of the minor daughters sold the disputed land to the complainant (opposite party) and his brother for Rs. 300 -00 by an unregistered sale -deed, Ext. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a member of the scheduled tribe. The opposite party and his brother belong to non -scheduled Tribe. As permission is necessary for transfer of land by a member of the Scheduled tribe in favour of one belonging to nonscheduled tribe, Petitioner -1 filed an application, Ext. 2, for permission of the S.D.O. on the date of sale. He, however, did not pursue the prayer for permission. The case of the opposite party was that he was all through in possession, had grown paddy on the disputed land, and on 6 -12 -1970 the Petitioners along with others cut and carried away the crop. The defence of the Petitioners was that under the unregistered sale -deed only Rs. 150 -00 had been paid out of Rs. 300 -00. Though Petitioner 1 executed the unregistered sale deed and made an application for permission, the land continued to be in possession of Petitioner 1. He grew the crop and reaped ' the paddy, and committed no offence.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below placed reliance on the unregistered sale -deed, ext. 1, the application for permission, ext. 2, and the oral evidence of 2 to 6 as to possession by the complainant from the date of sale till the date the Petitioners cut and removed the paddy and also on their deposition that in respect of the crop of the year 1970, the opposite party grew the paddy. On this finding, they rejected the bona fide claim of right advanced by the Petitioners. Mr. Section Mohanty made a faint attempt to assail this concurrent finding. After going through the evidence placed by him, I am satisfied that the finding is unassaible.;

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