BALUNKI BEHERA Vs. RUKUNI BEHERANL
LAWS(ORI)-1978-1-3
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 16,1978

BALUNKI BEHERA Appellant
VERSUS
RUKUNI BEHERANL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Defendant No. 1, the main contestant of the plaintiff's case, has preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit house and directing the defendant No. 1 to vacate possession of the suit house or to be evicted therefrom through court.
(2.) The suit house admittedly belonged to Ramakrishna Behera, the father of the plaintiff and the paternal grandfather of defendant no. 1, Ramakrishna had three sons, Balabhadra, Kalia (father of defendant no. 1) and Laxman, Kalia and Laxman executed a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) on 10-12-46 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 300/-. As defendant no. 1, the appellant herein, was then a minor, the document was executed on his behalf by Kalia as the father-guardian of the minor. Kalia died within a short time after the execution of the sale deed.
(3.) The plaintiff a case, in short, is that Balabhadra died issueless prior to the year 1946. Thereafter Kalia and Laxman sold the suit house described in schedule A of the plaint to the plaintiff for Rs. 300/- as per the registered sale deed Ext. 1 dated 10-12-1946, and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit house. After the execution of the sale deed Kalia stayed in another house constructed by him. On the request of the relations, the plaintiff permitted Laxman to remain in the suit house for some time as the plaintiff then was living with her husband at Kharagpur where he was employed then. Laxman died in 1969 and thereafter his widow Kamala went away to her father's house, However, the plaintiff permitted defendant No. 1, the son of Laxman, to remain in the house. After the death of the plaintiffs husband she came back to her said house and got the suit house mutated in her name in the municipal records in 1966. Subsequently during the Survey and Settlement operations, defendant no, 1 set up claim for the suit house, and in 1969 the Settlement authorities, in spite of the plaintiffs objection, directed joint recording of the name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in respect of the said house. The plaintiff has prayed for recovery of possession of the suit house from defendant no, 1 and for, other ancillary reliefs.;


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