BHAGABAT BASUDEV Vs. AJODHYA DAS
LAWS(ORI)-1978-2-8
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on February 23,1978

BHAGABAT BASUDEV Appellant
VERSUS
AJODHYA DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below. The not was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of a house in Puri town described in lot No. 1 of the plaint schedule and some lands situated in village Rebana Nuagan described in lot No. 2 of the plaint schedule, and for other consequential reliefs.
(2.) Admittedly Nitei Dasi was the owner of the suit properties.
(3.) According to the plaintiffs:The said Nitei Dasi endowed the suit properties in favour of plaintiff No. 1, a deity installed by her in her house, and after the said endowment she, as the Marfatdar of the deity, was in management of the suit properties and was performing the Sebapuja of that deity. Subsequently on 11-5-63 she made a gift (Ext. 4) of the suit properties in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and appointed him as the Marfatdar of the deity. Thereafter plaintiff No. 2 possessed the suit properties as the Marfatdar of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 2, a dose associate of Nitei Dasi, became jealous of plaintiff No.2, and somehow, obtained from Nitei Dasi some fraudulent documents, the contents and import of which were not known to Nitei Dasi After the death of Nitei Dasi, defendant No. 2 on 13-11-65 without notice to the plaintiffs obtained the letters of administration in respect of a will allegedly executed by Nitei Dasi in favour of defendant No. 2 on 4-3-65 (Ext. B). Thereafter defendant No. 2 executed an illegal sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of defendant No. 1 on 22-9-64 (Ext. A). After making a gift of the suit properties in favour of plaintiff No. 2 Nitei Dasi had absolutely no subsisting interest in the suit properties, and therefore neither the legatee under the will (defendant No. 2) nor the purchaser of the suit properties (defendant No. 1) from defendant No. 2 acquired any right, title or interest in the said properties. The defendants were never in possession of the suit properties but on imaginary and invented allegations defendant No. 1 initiated a proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P. C. and in that case possession was wrongly declared in favour of defendant No. 3. Hence this suit.;


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