The judgment discusses the heavy burden on the party challenging a sale-deed after a long lapse of time, the bar of limitation under Article 56 of the Limitation Act, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the context of final publication of record of right in the consolidation operation.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jajpur in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1994.

The respondent no. 1 as the plaintiff had filed the suit for cancellation of the deed of sale said to have been executed by his father Hrushi Jena and for declaration of his right, title and interest as such over the suit land with alternative prayer for partition of the suit property and allotment of a share to him as entitled in law in case the deed of sale is held valid. The suit having been dismissed, the respondent no. 1 as the unsuccessful plaintiff had filed the first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that appeal having allowed, the present second appeal has come to be filed.

2. For the sake of convenience as also to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been described as per their position and as assigned in the trial court.

It is pertinent to state here that the suit had been filed against one Mir Daud Alli and he having died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives have been arraigned in his place as the defendants and they were the respondents in the lower appellate court who have filed now this second appeal.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land was their ancestral homestead originally belonging to one Mani Jena who happens to be grandfather of the plaintiff. His father was the recorded tenant as per the record of the last settlement having succeeded to the said property on the death of Mani. It is stated that plaintiff’s father was a poor labourer and the defendant was a rich and influential person of the locality. The plaintiff’s father was working under him as labourer. This defendant’s land is said to have been situated on the adjacent south of the suit land. It is stated that on 04.01.1938, the defendants had obtained the sale-deed executed by Hrushi Jena in respect of the suit land in the garb of getting the deed of security from him for working under him till his death and not to contract with anyone else to work under him and making him believe as such. The deed was challenged as fraudulent and without the knowledge of the executants. In other words, the execution of deed as such by Hrushi is denied as to have ever been made as such and thus the sale of the suit land to the defendant. It is stated that such sale was never acted upon and the possession of the suit land all along remained with Hrushi and then with the plaintiff. The deed is said to have created no right, title and interest in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendant. It is pleaded that the deed has been obtained by the defendant by exercising undue influence and having the fiduciary relationship and as such also to be a nominal one. Further it is said to have been so obtained taking advantage of poverty of Hrushi, who only knew to put his signature and nothing else and when there was no necessity on his part to sale the land. It is also stated that the suit land being the undivided co-parcenery property, Hrushi had no authority to transfer his share. On a fine morning of 01.03.1984 when defendants threatened the plaintiff with the dispossession from the suit land, the suit has been filed after collecting all the above detail informations.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The allegations leveled against him concerning the execution of sale-deed and all other facts surrounding the same as narrated in the plaint and as aforesaid have been stoutly denied. The relationship of Hrushi with the defendant also stands denied. It is stated that Hrushi was never the retained labour of the defendant nor he ever worked under the defendant. It is next pleaded that Hrushi had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20 from the defendants on 19.03.1936 by executing a money bond and in order to repay the same as also to pay the arrear rent to the landlord, he transferred land measuring Ac. 0.24 de