The court emphasized the importance of proving the contents of a document and upheld the trial Court's decision based on lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanju Panda, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 6.9.1980 and decree dated 16.9.1980 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Keonjhar in T.S. No. 56 of 1977-1.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The present Respondents 1 to 9 as Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 3 are Appellants.

For better appreciation, the geneology of Maniram Mohanta given in Schedule-A of the plaint is as follows:

Maniram Mohanta

__________________________|________________________________

| | |

Rijhu Fuchua Hari

| | |

| Saheba Hrushikesh

| | |

| Benga Bewa (P-5) (P-1)

_________|____________________ |

| | | | |

Bhaktu Jagtu Jaja Khainta |

= Tulsi | (D-4) |

| | |

(D-5) Khatu | |

| \ | ________|___________

| \ | | | |

| \ Chepi Chandra Krushna Charku

Brahmananda Karmu (P-2) (P-3) (P-4)

(D-1) (D-2)

Their specific case is that properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint originally belonged to Maniram Mohanta who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Rijhu, Fuchua and Hari and subsequently the property was mutated in the names of Rijhu, Hari and Saheba in Mutation Case No. 688 of 1923-24. After the death of Maniram, his three sons separated in status and cultivated separate portions of the suit lands for convenience without partition by metes and bounds. After Rijhu's death, his sons also separated and possessed separate portions of the suit lands. After the death of Jaja, his widow married second time leaving his daughter who was arrayed as Defendant No. 4 and possessed the land of her father (Jaja). Defendant No. 3's son Chaitan got some documents fraudulently alleged to be executed by the members of the joint family for partition of the property on the pretext that he will get separate pattas from them in the recent settlement operation without explaining and disclosing the contents of the documents. Since the parties are illiterate, they were not aware of the contents of that document. The Plaintiffs demanded partition of the suit land and as the Defendants refused to do the same, they filed the suit.

3. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed their joint written statement stating therein that the Plaintiffs added Defendants 6 to 13 who claimed title to the disputed property on the plea of adverse possession in respect of different portions of the suit land. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 in their joint written statement pleaded that there was a complete partition of the suit property long ago on the basis of which the different branches of the original owner continued in peaceful possession of the disputed land. Subsequently, Saheba and Hari who ran into debts orally sold some of their lands to Defendants 6 to 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 3 to 4 who are the successors of Saheba left the village and lived in village Pentha Sahi of Hoondadandapat and earned their livelihood as labourers while Hari served as a labourer in his own village. Some years after, Saheba returned to his village and cultivated the remaining portions of his land. Plaintiff taking advantage of the joint record of rights of the previous settlement, created trouble in peaceful possession of the Defendants after which on the intervention of some well wishers, the parties came to Champua where they sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate admitting the previous partition and peaceful possession thereof. The Settlement Officer erroneously ignoring that affidavit jointly recorded the land in the names of the parties. Defendant No. 4 has no interest in the suit properties as her father died in the joint family long ago. Defendant No. 5 died during the pendency of the suit and her name was expunged from the cause-title of the suit. On the above plea, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendants 6, 10, 11 and 12 filed a joint written statement stating therein that Defendant No. 6 purchased two kittas of land out of suit plot No. 108/531 and Defendants 10 and 11 joi