JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'),questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/2006, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the Plaintiff's claim. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction with regard to the properties described in plaint Schedule “B”. According to the Plaintiff, the properties described in plaint Schedule “A” were originally held by one Sobran Sahu, who died issue-less on 27.09.1988 and since he was adopted by him from his childhood, being the son of his brother - Ramdev and the Will was executed by said Sobran Sahu on 09.06.1977 bequeathing the entire Schedule “A” properties to him, therefore, he acquired the same by way of inheritance as such after his death.

3. It is pleaded further that despite the inheritance of the aforesaid properties upon the sad demise of its erstwhile owner, the mother of Defendant 1, namely, Dashmet Bai, who was the wife of one Dhongva Teli, has obtained the revenue papers mutated in her name alone upon the death of said Sobran Sahu without the knowledge of him, therefore, he was constrained to institute the suit against her with regard to the plaint Schedule “A” properties for declaration of title and injunction which was registered as Civil Suit No.32-A/1990, re-numbered as Civil Suit No.39-A/1998. It is pleaded further that the claim so made therein was ended on the basis of compromise decree dated 18.11.1998, whereby the part of plaint Schedule “A” properties, that is, the properties shown in plaint Schedule “B” came in his share while properties described in Schedule “C”, which were also the part of plaint Schedule “A” properties, came in share of said Dashmet Baiand the Plaintiff has, thus, become the owner of said plaint Schedule “B” properties. Further contention of him is that the part of it, i.e. plaint Schedule “D” properties, were sold illegally by said Dashmet Bai while taking undue advantage of recording her name in revenue papers to Defendant No.2-Rajlal and Defendant No.3-Harilal under the registered deed of sale dated 11.04.2000, who on the strength of the alleged sale, started interfering in his peaceful possession, therefore, the Plaintiff has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 03.05.2000.

4. While denying the due execution, attestation and validity of the alleged Will, it is contested by Defendants 1 to 3 on the ground that the Plaintiff was never adopted by said Sobran Sahu nor has acquired the land in question described in plaint Schedule “A”. It is contested further on the ground that the signature of said Dashmet Bai was obtained by the Plaintiff in the alleged consent letter fraudulently and that by putting undue influence upon her and, contented further that the contents of it were neither read over before the Court nor her statement was recorded and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim his right over the plaint Schedule “B” properties based upon the compromise decree as arrived at on 18.11.1998 in the said suit being Civil Suit No.39-A/1998. It is pleaded further that since the said Dashmet Bai has duly sold the properties in question described in plaint Schedule “D” to Defendants 2 and 3 under the registered deed of sale dated 11.04.2000, therefore, the claim as made by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the plaint Schedule “A” property was the self-acquired property of one Sobran Sahu and upon his sad demise on 27.09.1988, it was inherited by his widow Smt. Dashmet Bai as the Plaintiff has failed to es