The court upheld the validity of an oral partition, affirming the plaintiff's rightful ownership of jointly purchased property and invalidating a sale-deed executed without her knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 and 09.01.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Gajapati-Parlakhemundi in The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit land with further prayer to declare the registered sale-deed dated 21.03.2011 executed by Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in favour of Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.2) as null and void in seeking delivery of possession of the suit land from the Respondents (Defendants) with further prayer for permanent injunction. The suit having been decreed; this Appellant being the aggrieved, Defendant No.1 had carried an Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The Appeal has been dismissed.

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 Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant No.1 is her mother whereas Defendant No.2 is her brother. The Plaintiff had entered into Government service as Village Agricultural Worker in the year 1991. She was posted at Bodokotturu and then transferred to Ankuspur and in the year 1996, was again transferred to village Chenameri where she continued to stay till the year, 2009. After that, she was transferred to Gurandi. It is stated that during the period of service at village Ankuspur, she with her mother (Defendant No.1) had purchased vacant piece of land measuring Hc.0.056 decimals from Plot No.355, Khata No.84 of mouza: Mohana by registered sale-deed dated 10.12.1993. The Plaintiff having purchased the suit land jointly with her mother enjoyed the property as such. Subsequently, the land was mutated in their names. Plaintiff married in the year, 1997 and after marriage, she continued to possess the purchased property with her mother as before. On 1708.2002, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 mutually agreed for a partition of the suit land between them into two equal halves in presence of village gentries. It is stated that in that partition, effected orally, the eastern portion of the purchased land measuring 30 cubits X 45 cubits fell in the share of the Plaintiff; whereas the western portion of equal size was allotted to the Defendant No.1. It is further stated that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 after said partition remained in possession of the respective portions of land falling in their respective shares and then the Plaintiff constructed one R.C. roof house over her part of the land, keeping some vacant land. She states to have spent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose by withdrawing the same from her General Provident Fund account besides a incurring the loan from HUDCO. Sons of Defendant No.1 did not take care of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff was however shouldering that burden. Since the Defendant No.1 being not taken care of by her sons, and there was no shelter for her, the Plaintiff had allowed her to stay in that house standing over the suit land. But Plaintiff being transferred to village Gurandi from Mohana, she had left the house in custody of Defendant No.1 for her occupation and was visiting the house during holidays and when was taking leave.

The Defendant No.2 is one of the brothers of the Plaintiff. It is stated that Defendant No.2 by exercising undue pressure upon the Defendant No.1 having brought her to Paralakhemundi on 21.03.2011, got a registered sale-deed created in his favour in respect of the suit land. The sale-deed thus came into being behind the back of the Plaintiff and her knowledge without payment of any con