JUDGMENT

The legal representatives of unsuccessful defendants in these appeals challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 01/18, 02/19 of 2003/2000 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 13 and 14 of 1995 have been confirmed.

2.For the sake of convenience, in order to bring clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the trial Court.

The respondent no. 1 as the plaintiff filed above noted O.S. No. 13 and 14 of 1995 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar (as it was then) in O.S. No. 152 of 1981 in favour of defendant no. 1 and against the State of Odisha and vender of the plaintiff on the ground that it has been fraudulently obtained with the further relief of declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over of the suit land. The suits having been decreed by the common judgment, above noted appeals were preferred in the Court of District Judge, Bhubaneswar and those have also been dismissed.

3.Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land vested with the State of Odisha on 24.08.1953 and it was accordingly recorded under Khata No. 245 appertaining to plot No. 783 and 784 as per Major Settlement record of the year 1962. The plaintiff no. 1 being an Ex-Army personnel was settled with land measuring Ac.5.000 decimals by the State in Lease Case No. 580 of 1967-68 out of that plot no. 783 in total measuring Ac. 15.000 decimals and out of plot no. 748 measuring Ac. 18.25 decimals. The lands were demarcated and shown being assigned with separate plot no. 783 / 1326 for an area of Ac. 2.500 decimals and plot no. 784/1327 for an area Ac. 2.500 decimals. Accordingly, the record of right Ext. 19 was issued in his favour. Thereafter, he sold the suit land by registered sale-deed dated 17.12.1981 by (Ext. 20) and 04.02.1982 (Ext. 21) measuring an area Ac. 1.000 decimals and Ac. 1.5000 decimals out of plot no. 784/1327. Plaintiff no. 2 being rightful owner and in possession paid rent regularly to the defendant No.3 and also got the said land mutated in his favour vide (Ext. 24).

When plaintiff no. 2 found the defendant no. 1 creating disturbance in her possession stacking a claim over there. The matter was enquired into. Then it came to be known that defendant no. 1 had obtained an exparte judgment and decree in O.S. No. 152 of 1981 from the Court of Munsif, Bhubaneswar behind the back of plaintiff no. 1 without service of notice and by filing and proving totally fraudulent, forged and manufactured documents as genuine in support of the claim. So, the suits came to be filed. The State supported the case of the plaintiffs.

4.The defendant no. 1 filed the written statement taking necessary defence which had been struck down by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) under Order-11, Rule-21 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a specific order to that effect as required under law on 18.08.1987, since the defendant no. 1 failed to comply with the order in properly answering the interrogatories delivered to him in writing under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code. However, he contested the suit by participating during hearing.

5.In the trial, seven issues were framed. Issue No.3, 4 and 7 are inter-linked. The fate of the suits hinges upon the finding as to whether the defendant no. 1 had obtained the exparte decree in O.S. No. 152 of 1981 by practicing the fraud by way of filing fraudulent, manufactured and forged documents and pressing those as genuine. The other issues relating to the plaintiff no. 2’s right, title and interest on the basis of lease granted to the vendors of plaintiff no. 1 and the sale-deed executed by plaintiff no. 2’s vender are consequential.

It may be mentioned here that from the side of the defendants, no witness was examined nor any document has been admitted in the evidence. The trial Court found the suit to h