Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1327 (ORI)

Draupadi Nayak v. Rupadhar Nayak

2017-11-20

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against confirming decision. The suit was for declaration that the unregistered sale deed dated 24.6.1988 executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 is void and inoperative. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is the wife of defendant no.3 and plaintiff no.2 is their adopted son. Defendant no.3 is a ganja addict. When defendant no.3 was in a hallucination state of mind, defendant nos.1 and 2 obtained his signature and executed a registered sale deed dated 24.6.1988 in their favour. No consideration was paid. Possession of the land was not delivered to them. 3. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that defendant no.3 had executed the registered sale deed in their favour for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession of the suit property. Defendant no.3 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Both parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that there was no evidence on record that the suit land is the ancestral land of the family of the plaintiffs and defendant no.3. The sale deed was a genuine one. Possession was delivered to the vendees. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Sub-Judge, Nawapara in T.A. No.10/1989, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. A and B of the memorandum of appeal. The same are : “A. Whether oral evidence in support of allegation that the suit property was ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant no.3 should be believed in absence of documentary evidence ? B. Whether the evidence of attesting witnesses to the sale deed dated 24.6.88 executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is sufficient to negative the contentions of the plaintiffs that the Defendant No.3 had been intoxicated by the Defendants 1 and 2 at the time of execution of sale deed and no consideration had passed in the said sale deed ?” 6. Heard Mr. Debasis Pattnaik on behalf of Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 7. Mr. Heard Mr. Debasis Pattnaik on behalf of Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit schedule property was the ancestral property of the defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 was a ganja addict. He had no authority to alienate the land to defendant nos.1 and 2. He had also no legal necessity. Defendant nos.1 and 2 fraudulently obtained the sale deed from defendant no.3. The sale deed is void. Both the courts committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in discarding the oral testimony of the plaintiffs. The evidence of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed is not sufficient to negative the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.3 in a hallucination state of mind executed the sale deed in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 and no consideration was paid. 8. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit property was the ancestral property of defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 had executed the sale deed for a valid consideration. Possession of the land was duly delivered to the vendees. These are essentially finding of facts. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.