Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 47 (ORI)

Hemalata Mohanty v. Golapi Sahu

2018-01-09

A.K.RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. This is a defendants’ appeal against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. Case of the plaintiffs was that Dharamdeo Pandey was the original owner of Ac.0.17 dec. of land. Defendant no.1 purchased Schedule-A land by means of a registered sale deed dated 30.7.1968. To construct a house, she sold the Schedule-B land to the plaintiff no.1 and her husband Nakul Chandra Sahu by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1980 for a valid consideration. They are in possession of the same. Thereafter, Nakul applied to the Tahasildar, Baripada to depute an Amin for identification of the land. After due measurement, it was found that out of A0.08.500 dec. of land, the vendor had given delivery of possession of only Ac.0.07 dec. of land to the vendee. Defendant no.1 did not deliver the land measuring Ac.01.500 dec., which fell short of the land sold by her to the plaintiffs. She encroached upon the same along with defendant nos.2 to 6. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, defendant no.1 was not the owner in possession of Schedule-A land. The land was purchased by her husband Radhakrushna Mohanty in her name. Her husband was the real owner. Her husband was in possession of the land till his death. After his death, his children and widow are in possession of the same. Defendant no.1 sold a portion of Schedule-A land to the plaintiff no.1 and her husband and delivered possession. The contents of the sale deeds were not read over and explained to her. Defendant no.1 is a paradanasin widow. She does not know reading or writing except putting her signature. The plaintiffs are not the lawful owners of Schedule-B land. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary to substantiate their case. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant no.1 was not a paradanasini lady. She alienated the suit land for legal necessity. She executed two sale deeds one in favour of the plaintiff and another in favour of her husband. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant no.1 was not a paradanasini lady. She alienated the suit land for legal necessity. She executed two sale deeds one in favour of the plaintiff and another in favour of her husband. After understanding the contents thereof, she put her signature. Held so, it decreed the suit. Unsuccessful defendants challenged the judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Baripada, which was transferred to the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Baripada and renumbered as Title Appeal No.6/52 of 1999/1992. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos. I and II. The same are - “I. Whether the sale deeds vide Exhibits-1 & 2 are valid in law or void in the absence of endorsement of being read over, explained and understood by the vendor, defendant no.1 and being witnessed by her minor children ? II. Whether the defendant no.1 should have been held as the exclusive owner in possession of ‘A’ Schedule property and after the death of her husband and competent to sale the property as per Ext.1 and 2 to plaintiff No.1 and her husband ?” 6. Heard Mr. Pranab Kumar Pasayat, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Arundhati Sahoo, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Pasayat, learned counsel for the appellants submits that defendant no.1 was a Paradanasini lady. She had not executed the sale deeds after understanding the contents thereof. Heavy onus lies on the plaintiffs to prove that the contents of the sale deeds were read over and explained to her. The suit property was not the exclusive property of defendant no.1. After death of her husband, the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The suit property belongs to the defendants. Thus she has no exclusive right to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Further, the sale was not for the legal necessity. 8. Per contra, Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondents submits that defendant no.1 was the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property. The suit property belongs to the defendants. Thus she has no exclusive right to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Further, the sale was not for the legal necessity. 8. Per contra, Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondents submits that defendant no.1 was the exclusive owner of the suit schedule property. For legal necessity, she alienated the suit land in favour of plaintiff no.1 and her husband by means of a registered sale deeds. Possession of the suit land was duly delivered. But then, possession in respect of Ac.01.500 dec. of land was not delivered for which the plaintiffs have instituted the suit. She further submits that defendant no.1 was not a pardanasini lady. Both the courts below have rightly held that she is not a pardanasini lady. 9. On a vivid analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the scribe P.W.2 deposed that on 29.1.1980 both the sale deeds vide Exts.1 and 2 were scribed on the instruction of the vendor Hemalata Mohanty- D.W.1. The contents of the sale deeds were read over and explained to the vendor. After understanding the same, she put her signature on those documents. He scribed the sale deed vide Ext.1, while Ext.2 was scribed in his presence by one Chandrasekhar Dutta. P.W.3 was a witness to the sale deeds. He proved due execution and attestation of the documents. He stated that the contents of the deeds were read over and explained to the vendor in his presence. P.W.3 further stated that defendant no.4, who happens to be the daughter of the vendor, is also an attesting witness to the sale deeds. Defendant no.4 was in service at the relevant point of time. Both P.Ws 2 and 3 have duly proved execution and attestation of the two sale deeds. Though they were subjected to extensive cross-examination, but nothing material had been elicited from their mouth. Thus Exts.1 and 2 conveyed good title in respect of Schedule-B land to the vendees. It further held that D.W.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that after death of her husband, she was looking after the entire affairs of the family. On taking a holistic view of the matter, learned trial court came to the conclusion that defendant no.1 was not a pardanasini lady. It further held that D.W.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that after death of her husband, she was looking after the entire affairs of the family. On taking a holistic view of the matter, learned trial court came to the conclusion that defendant no.1 was not a pardanasini lady. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and held that defendant no.1 is neither a padanasini lady nor illiterate lady. Her daughter Manjushree Mohanty was serving in the Tahasil Office at the time of execution of the sale deeds. She was an attesting witness to the deeds. She must not have allowed her mother to sign on the documents on good faith without knowing its contents and understanding their purports. Exts.1 and 2 have been duly executed and registered. It further held that D.W.1 had gone twice to the Sub-Registrar Office. She was present when deeds were registered. In her cross-examination, she stated that the lands were purchased by them from Sri Pandey. A pucca house was constructed at the southern side of the suit plot, which was let out to the Tourism Department. D.W.1 had enough knowledge about the approved plan basing on which the pucca house was constructed. D.W.1 has stated that after receipt of the consideration amount, she deposited the consideration amount in her postal savings bank account. She admitted that the land purchased from Sri Pandey had been recorded in her name during consolidation operation. She used to pay rent. The municipality holding stands in her name. 10. Both the courts concurrently held that defendant no.1 was not a Pardanasini lady. The scribe as well as attesting witness examined by the plaintiff unequivocally stated that the contents of the deeds were read over and explained to the vendor. After understanding the contents thereof, she put her signature. Manjushree Mohanty, one of the attesting witness to the deeds, is the daughter of defendant no.1. She was serving in the Tahasil Office. Defendant no.1 had been to the Sub-Registrar Office twice. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 11. The suit schedule property was recorded in the name of the defendant no.1 in the consolidation ROR. Thus defendant no.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She was serving in the Tahasil Office. Defendant no.1 had been to the Sub-Registrar Office twice. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 11. The suit schedule property was recorded in the name of the defendant no.1 in the consolidation ROR. Thus defendant no.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. To press legal necessity, she alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and her husband by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. Since possession of Ac.01.500 dec. of land was not delivered to the plaintiffs, they compelled to institute the suit. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 12. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.