Back
High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Mohanti, J.
KARUNAKAR PANDA - Appellant
Versus
DURGABATI BEWA - Respondent
Second Appeal 200 Of 1977
Decided On : 10/10/1980
RES JUDICATA - SINGLE SUIT - MULTIPLE APPEALS - DECREE - JUDGMENT - DISTINCTION - LEGAL NECESSITY - SALE BY WIDOW - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITED OWNER - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, SECTION 14.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a reversioner, filed a suit to set aside a sale deed executed by the widow of the deceased owner in favor of the defendants' ancestors. The plaintiff claimed that the sale was without consideration and not supported by legal necessity. The defendants contended that the sale was genuine, for consideration, and supported by legal necessity, and that the suit was barred by res judicata due to previous dismissals of similar suits filed by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of res judicata was not applicable in this case because there was only one suit and one decision, even though two appeals and two decrees arose from the same suit. The court found that the widow possessed the properties as a limited owner and that the transferees acquired only a limited interest upon purchasing the lands from her. The court also found that the transferees had discharged the onus of proving legal necessity for the sale by providing evidence of the widow's financial difficulties and litigation expenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of res judicata barred the plaintiff's appeal due to the dismissal of a previous appeal arising from the same suit. 2. Whether the sale deed executed by the widow was genuine, for consideration, and supported by legal necessity. 3. Whether the transferees acquired a prescriptive title to the suit lands.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply because there was only one suit and one decision, even though two appeals and two decrees arose from the same suit. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Narahari v. Shankar, which held that where there has been one trial, one finding, and one decision, there need not be two appeals even though two decrees may have been drawn up. 2. The court found that the widow possessed the properties as a limited owner and that the transferees acquired only a limited interest upon purchasing the lands from her. The court also found that the transferees had discharged the onus of proving legal necessity for the sale by providing evidence of the widow's financial difficulties and litigation expenses. 3. The court held that the transferees did not acquire a prescriptive title to the suit lands because they had purchased only a limited interest from the widow and had not possessed the lands adversely for the required period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the sale deed executed by the widow was genuine, for consideration, and supported by legal necessity, and that the transferees had not acquired a prescriptive title to the suit lands.
P. K. MOHANTI, J.
( 1 ) THE Second Appeal is by the plaintiff against a decree of affirmance.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff claimed to be a re-versioner along with defendants 7, 8 and 9 to the estate of one Khetrabasi Panda, who died in 1918. He brought the suit for setting aside a sale deed executed by Udia Dibya, the widow of late Khetrabasi panda in favour of the ancestors of defendants 1 to 6 in respect of the suit lands. He also prayed for recovery of possession of the same and for mesne profits.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs case was that Laxman, Gadadhar and Chakradhar, the three sons of Kanhei Panda separated in mess and estate and accordingly the the family properties were separately recorded in their names in the settlement record of rights published in the year 1915. Out of 3. 01 acres of land each of the three sons of Kanhei got 1/3 share. Khetrabasi was in possession of 1. 01 acre of land which had fallen to the share of his grandfather Laxman. He died issueless in the year 1918 leaving behind him his widow Udia Dibya. She was all along in possession of the properties left by her deceased husband and in the year 1951 she transferred 84f decimals of land to Hari Sahu, the husband of defendant No. l and father of defendants 2 to 4 and Pahali Sahau, the father of defendants 5 and 6 and since then the transferees remained in possession of the lands. The plaintiff's contention was that the transferees fraudulently obtained the sale deed from Udia Dibya without payment of consideration and that there was no legal necessity for the sale. Upon these allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit on 13-2-1967 for the aforesaid reliefs.
( 4 ) THE stand taken by defendants 1 to 6 was that the sale deed executed by udia Dibya in favour of Hari and Pahali was genuine and for consideration and it was supported by legal necessity. It was alleged that Krushna Panda, the third son of Chakradar had filed T. S. No. 4/51 against Udia Dibya to oust her from the family properties and in order to meet the litigation expenses and for her maintenance she sold the suit lands in favour of Hari and Pahali on receipt of full consideration for the same. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had filed T. S. No. 98 of 1958 challenging the sale deed executed by Udia Dibya and the suit was dismissed on the finding that the same was genuine and for consideration. The plaintiff also filed T. S. No. 47 of 1967 claiming partition of his share in the family properties including the suit properties and that suit was decided on the finding that the sale by Udia D'bya was supported by legal necessity. Accordingly, it was alleged that the suit was barred by res judicata.
( 5 ) THE learned Munsif who originally decided the suit on 31st July, 1973 came to the findings that the sale deed executed by Udia Dibya was genuine and for consideration, but it was pot supported by legal necessity. He discarded the plea of res judicata and estimated the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60/-per year. But he dismissed the suit on the ground that sufficient particulars had not been given for identification of the suit lands and hence the suit was bad for vagueness and indefiniteness.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by this decision the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 9/73 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar against the decree of dismissal of the suit. Defendants 1 to 6 also preferred Title Appeal No. 12 of 1973 challenging the finding about want of legal necessity for the sale. After hearing both the appeals analogously, the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit and called for a specific finding regarding the identity of the suit lands. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint by adding some new properties and specifying the area of disputed properties as 1. 01 acres. The Trial Court by its order dated 3-4-1975 allowed the amendment. Defendants 1 to 6 preferred civil Revision No. 143 of 1975 challenging the order of amendment. This Court allowed the Civil Revision o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
