The presumption of validity of a registered sale deed cannot be dismissed without compelling evidence to substantiate claims of fraud and incapacity.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. The judgment and decree dated 11^th March 2008 of learned Ad- hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Jagatsinghpur passed in T.S. No.37/84 of 2006/2002 is assailed in present appeal by Defendants 2 & 3.

The suit was filed by present Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff praying for partition and to declare R.S.D. No.2410/2000 (Ext-A) executed in favour of Defendants 2 & 3 as void and invalid, along with other consequential reliefs. There are two sets of property involved in the suit as schedule-A and schedule-B. Schedule-B property is the property covered by R.S.D. dated 24^th October 2000 (Ext-A).

3. The parties contested their case and upon adjudication the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff drawing shares of the parties over the properties covered in both schedule-A & B treating the sale deed under Ext-A as void, without any specific declaration to that effect. The properties under lot No.II of Suit Schedule-A has been decreed in favour of the family deity (Defendant No.1) with joint marfatdar of both parties. The portion of the decree where learned Trial Judge has treated the sale deed under Ext-A as void covering schedule-B property, and directing partition of the same among the parties is subject matter of challenge in present appeal.

4. The relationship between the parties is that, late Dolagobinda Parida (Doli) is the common ancestor of the parties who had two sons and two daughters. Second son namely, Ram Chandra Parida is the Plaintiff. The family deity is Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 is the elder son, i.e. brother of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are the sons of Defendant No.4. Defendant Nos. 5 & 6 are the daughters of Dolagobinda and Defendant No.7 was the wife of Dolagobinda.

5. According to Plaintiff, entire property of the family was undivided and therefore there should be partition among the parties in respect of schedule-A properties. In addition to the same, the Plaintiff contends that the property covered in suit Schedule-B, allegedly sold by Dolagobinda under Ext-A in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, is not valid and the sale deed is a void document. It is for the reason that on the date of alleged sale on 24^th October 2000, his father late Dolagobinda was not mentally fit to act independently to execute the sale deed. But the sale deed under Ext-A was signed by Late Dolagobinda by misrepresentation and fraud on the guise of getting financial assistance from the Office of Block Development Officer for Indira Abas House. It is the further case of Plaintiff that there was no legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida to execute such sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, secondly, there was no passing of consideration money in the alleged execution of sale deed of schedule-B land and thirdly, there was no delivery of possession in pursuance of the impugned sale.

6. The Defendants had no objection with regard to partition of the suit schedule-A property and all the parties accordingly agreed for partition in respect of suit schedule-A property. But Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 who are the purchasers in respect of the sale deed under Ext-A, filed their joint written statement denying the contentions of the Plaintiff to treat the sale deed as a sham document a