The relevance of parentage and the interpretation of legal provisions such as Sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 17 of the Registration Act in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K.Rath, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants’ against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara in Title Appeal No.9 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2001 and 24.2.2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara in T.S.No.117 of 1987.

2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted T.S.No.117 of 1987 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the daughter of Manika. Her mother had purchased the suit property out of stridhan. She was a pardanashin lady. Defendant No.5 was the husband of Manika. After death of Manika, defendant no.5 remarried to Annapurna. Defendant No.5 had inducted father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as caretakers of the suit property. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had engaged defendant nos.3 and 4 to look after the suit property. They were paying rent on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property on the basis of forged lease deeds. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking reliefs cited supra.

3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2(ka) filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not the daughter of Manika. She is the daughter of Annapurna, second wife of defendant No.5, Manika was the owner of the suit property. Defendant No.5 had purchased the suit property in the name of Manika. After the death of Manika, defendant No.5 had transferred the suit property in the name of defendant nos.1 to 4 vide permanent lease deeds dated 26.1.1947 and 18.5.1954. The suit is barred by limitation.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck ten issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is the daughter of Manika and not Annapurna. The lease deeds exhibited by the defendants are not genuine. Defendant No.5 had no authority to execute those deeds. Though defendant No.5 had purchased the suit land, the same was for the benefit of Manika. It negatived the plea of the defendants that they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it decreed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, defendants filed Title Appeal No.9 of 2001 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the second appeal, appellant no.1 died, whereafter his legal representatives have been brought on record.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether non-examination of the plaintiff herself is fatal and the suit was liable to be dismissed on that score ?

(ii) Whether P.W.5, the husband of the plaintiff who had no special knowledge about the parentage of the plaintiff, can represent the plaintiff in the witness box ?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be held that the appellants had perfected their title by way of adverse possession ?

(iv) Whether the admission of the plaintiff relating to her age can be considered for determination of the case relating to her parentage ?

(v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that P.W.5 had any special knowledge about the parentage of the plaintiff more so when the versions of the D.Ws were discarded on the ground that they had no special knowledge about the relationship ?

6. Heard Mr. Debasis Pattanaik on behalf of Mr. D.K Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

7. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the courts below fell into error in holding that P.W.5, who is the power o