Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 444 (ORI)

Jakha Dei @ Roul v. Bijaya Kumar Roul

2017-04-21

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak in C.S.No.147 of 2006-I. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff to mark the unregistered partition deed dated 14.4.1964 as exhibit. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that the registered deed nos.513, 514, 515 and 516 dated 9.3.83 in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 are void. It is pleaded that Pravakar Roul was the common ancestor of the parties. He was owner of the suit property. There was no partition between the plaintiff and defendant no.5 by metes and bounds. She instituted C.S.No.353 of 2005-I for partition impleading defendant no.5 as defendant. The same is sub-judice. The defendants 1 to 4, who are sons of defendant no.5, have filed Consolidation Revision Case No.385 of 2004 under Section 37(I) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act on the ground that they have obtained the case land under four different registered gift deeds. She came to know that the defendants have fraudulently obtained four different gift deeds on 9.3.1983 in their favour when her father was ill and bedridden. Her father was an illiterate man. The contents of the deeds were not read over and explained to him. The defendants filed the written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application to mark the unregistered deed of partition dated 14.4.1964 as exhibit. It is stated that the document was filed before the Consolidation Authority, but the same could not be filed in the suit. The defendant filed objection. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaint is completely silent with regard to deed of partition. The document has not been relied upon by the plaintiff. The evidence from the side of the plaintiff has already been closed. Held so, it rejected the application. 3. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 4. There is no foundational fact with regard to earlier partition. The plaintiff has not relied upon the unregistered deed of partition as well. After closure of evidence, the document has been sought to be exhibited. Sahoo, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 4. There is no foundational fact with regard to earlier partition. The plaintiff has not relied upon the unregistered deed of partition as well. After closure of evidence, the document has been sought to be exhibited. The learned trial court is justified in rejecting the application. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.