TRINATH DAS Vs. PRAFULLA PRADHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1979 and 1.9.1979 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bolangir in Title Suit No. 212 of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 212 of 1972 for declaration of title over the land measuring an area of Ac. 14.43 decimals appertaining to Holding No. 8/1 of village Antarla, Plot nos. 377, 376, 375, 372 etc. as per the map attached to the plaint and the usufruct of the suit land which was attached under a 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding.

(3.) THE present appellants who are contesting defendants 1 to 3 filed their written -statements traversing the averments made in the plaint. They averred that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and the plaintiffs belonged to a joint family and the suit land was a joint family property. There was no partition between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Defendant No. 4 who was the Manager and Karta of the family had incurred some loans from one Padman Pradhani and others. The suit land was sold by him to repay that loan. As the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were minors at the time of sale, defendant No. 4 being their guardian received the consideration amount of Rs. 6,000/ - and executed the registered sale deed on 10.09.1962. From the date of sale, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit land and they had raised crops in the suit land in the year of attachment. The sale was for the benefit of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6. Before execution of the sale deed, defendant Nos. 4 to 6 applied for permission to sell the suit land and the same was granted by the Revenue Authorities after due proclamation and with the consent of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mutated their names in respect of the suit land. In the current settlement, their names were also recorded and they are paying rent regularly for the suit land. As such, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 got their right, title and interest over the suit land and they prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.