BISHNU MAJHI Vs. RAIDHAR MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 24/8/2017 and 8/9/2017 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kantabanji in R.F.A. No.19/25 of 2014-16. The Respondent No.l, as the Plaintiff, had filed C.S. No.136/130 of 2008-13 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kantabanji seeking declaration of the WILL dtd. 5/2/19685 (Ext.F) as void and for further declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and permanent injunction against Defendant Nos.l & 2.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

(3.) Plaintiff's Case:- One Jabar Majhi was the Goiuntia of Village-Rengali and he had been allotted some Gounti land, which stood recorded in his name in the Holding No.13 of 1936 settlement. Jabar died in the year 1956 leaving behind his widow Sukrabari Majhi, who was then carrying the child of about four months. The Plaintiff is son of Jabar born after the death of Jabar. After the death of Jabar, his wife possessed the entire Gounti land and being a widow when she was unable to manage the land, she took the help of her nephew Dhubal Majhi for cultivation of the lands. For such service of Dhubal, the widow of Jabar had given him 8 to 9 acres of land from out of the Gounti land, which was exclusively recorded in his name under Holding No.26 of 1975 settlement. The rest Gounti land was recorded in the name of Sukrabari in Holding No.69. In course of time, the Plaintiff grew up and he along with his mother Sukrabari cultivated the land under Holding No.69. In the year 1976, Sukrabari died. Dhubal died much thereafter in the year 1993. The Plaintiff, being the sole legal heir and successor of Jabar and Sukrabari, possessed the suit land under Holding No.69. The Plaintiff, being in need of money, on 26/5/1981, sold Ac.2.24 decimals of land in favour of one Godtia Majhi (Defendant No.3) by a registered sale deed. The said land was mutated in the name of the purchaser (Defendant No.3), who is now possessing the same by paying the land revenue to the State. It is stated that like all other years, in the agricultural season of 2008, the Plaintiff had cultivated the land under that Holding No.69 by raising paddy crops. When the matter stood thus, it came as a surprise to him in the month of October when he had been to the local Revenue Inspector's Office to pay the land revenue for the land in his occupation as its owner, when he learnt that the same has been mutated in the name of Defendant No.1. On verification, it was found on the basis of the WILL dtd. 5/2/1968 (Ext.F), being projected by him to have been executed by Sukrabari, the Defendant No.1 has got the suit land mutated in his name in Mutation Case No.290/1115 of 20070 The Plaintiff claims that Sukrabari had never executed any WILL during her life time. The WILL, basing on which the Defendant No.1 has got the land mutated in his name is a forged and fabricated document with a view to grab the entire suit land. It is stated that said document was created by Dhubal. The Plaintiff then filed Mutation Appeal No.l of 2008, which was allowed and the order of mutation passed by the original authority was set aside. Accordingly, the record of right was corrected. However, on 23.ll.2008, the Defendant No.l challenged the title of the Plaintiff over the suit land for which the suit came to be filed.