The burden of proof to establish the execution of a document by a Pardanashin lady rests with the beneficiary, and in the absence of proof, the transaction cannot be considered valid.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2011 and 17.12.2011 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Baripada in R.F.A. No. 19/63 of 2011-10 confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 and 18.09.2010 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baripada in T.S. No. 192 of 1994.

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

3. The Respondent, as the Plaintiff, had filed the suit for declaration of her title over the land measuring Ac. 1.13 decimals situated in Mouza-Nalagaja under Hal Khata No. 11 assigned with plot no. 638 better described in Schedule-A of the plaint. It is her case that one Umakanta was the original owner of the suit land. He had other landed properties too. Umakanta died leaving behind his wife Kumudini and a daughter Sailabala. It is further stated that during the lifetime of Umakanta, in an amicable partition, he had given major portion of his landed properties to his daughter Sailabala keeping the suit property with other properties in his share and he was possessing the same peacefully till his death. The suit land with other landed properties, which Umakanata kept for himself, has been subsequently inherited by his widow Kumudini, who was possessing the same peacefully without any interference from any quarter.

It is stated that during lifetime of Kumudini, she had sold the suit land by registered sale-deed dated 21.04.1987 to the Plaintiff and delivered the possession of the same who since then possessed the suit land as its owner. The Plaintiff was staying with her husband in the house of late Umakanta as her husband, since his childhood days, had been brought upon by Umakanta. Umakanta had constructed the dwelling house for the Plaintiff’s husband where they were residing and it is at his instance, the husband of the Plaintiff too had joined in the service as a Forest Guard. The Defendant is the grandson of Umakanta being the son of his daughter Sailabala. It is alleged that he having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land, forcibly entered upon it on a fine morning of 09.04.1998 and dispossessed the Plaintiff. Local police being informed, as took no action, the suit came to be filed.

4. The Defendant, in his written statement, contended that after the death of Umakanta, the properties left by him was inherited by his widow Kumudini and daughter Sailabala. It is strongly denied that after the death of Umakanta, the suit land and other lands which were in his share were inherited by his widow alone. He disputes the fact that during the lifetime, Kumudini had sold the suit land to the Plaintiff. This sale is challenged on all such grounds that it is a sham transaction and the document is the outcome of fraud and as such the transaction is a fraudulent one. Besides, it has been pleaded that Kumudini was never in need of money for selling the suit land and she had never delivered the possession of the suit land pursuant to the said sale to the Plaintiff. The transaction which is projected as the foundation of the claim of the Plaintiff is stated to be void and inoperative and it is said that the Plaintiff has not derived any title by virtue of the same.

5. Faced with the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed five issues. Answering issue nos. 3 and 4 together, which concern with the right and title of the Plaintiff in so far as the suit land is concerned, upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, the Trial Court has recorded the answers in favour of the Plaintiff. Practically, this finding has led the Trial Court to decree the suit declaring her title over the suit land and, therefore, a direction has been given to the Defendant to restore the possession of the