A co-owner can validly sell their share in joint properties, and the sale deed cannot be declared void if it is within the extent of the seller's interest.

Judgment :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This second appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant in this second appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.38 of 1988 and respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.13 of 1990.

The respondents in this second appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.38 of 1988.

Out of the two defendants, the defendant No.2 (Satyabati Behera) was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.13 of 1990 and the defendant No.1 (Nabin Behera) was the respondent No.2 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.13 of 1990.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (appellant in this second appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.38 of 1988 against the defendants (respondents in this second appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction in alternative to declare that, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit properties as null, void and not binding upon him (plaintiff).

4. The suit properties are Ac.4.35 decimals under Khata No.67/53 in Mouza Barapadar under Khariar Tahasil in the District of Nuapada containing five plots vide Plot Nos.521, 522, 523, 524 & 525.

As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) and the defendant No.1 are the co-sharers of the suit properties and they (plaintiff and defendant No.1) are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The suit properties were originally belonged to Sadasiva Behera. After the death of Sadasiva Behera, the suit properties left by him (Sadasiva Behera) devolved upon his two sons i.e. plaintiff and Gangadhar (father of defendant No.1).

Gangadhar died leaving behind the defendant No.1 as his sole successor. So, the share of Gangadhar in the suit properties devolved upon the defendant No.1.

The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the jointly recorded tenants of the suit properties. The suit properties have not been partitioned between them (plaintiff and defendant No.1) till yet through any metes and bounds partition. Due to the affect of drought in the year 1988, the defendant No.1 left the suit village for earning his livelihood in other places and while he left the suit village, he introduced the defendant No.2 for carrying on joint cultivation of the suit properties with the plaintiff on his behalf. But, after few months, the defendant No.2 created disturbances in the joint cultivation of the plaintiff and falsely claimed that, she (defendant No.2) has purchased some portions of the suit properties from the defendant No.1 and also claimed her title on the same. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.38 of 1988 against the defendants praying for injuncting the defendant No.2 permanently from creating any sort of disturbances in his possession over the suit properties, in alternative to declare the sale deed, if any, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit properties as null, void and the same is not binding upon him (plaintiff).

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.38 of 1988, the defendants contested the same by filing their written statements separately and independe