The appellate court cannot redefine the status of a sale deed previously determined as voidable, reinforcing the principle of res judicata in property disputes involving minors and their guardians.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No.17/25 of 2003/1992. They having filed the suit i.e. TS No.23/39 of 1988/93-I as the Plaintiffs arraigning the Respondents as the Defendants for declaration of their title over the suit tank and for permanent injunction, learned Additional Sub-Judge, Puri had decreed the suit. The Respondents being the aggrieved Defendants having challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in an Appeal filed by them under Section-96 of the Code have been successful in non-suiting these Appellants (Plaintiffs).

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. Plaintiffs case is that one Udaynath Mohapatra was the owner of the suit tank. In the year, 1917, he sold a portion that is Ac.0.73 decimals to one Basudev Das, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant Nos. 5 to 10. It is stated that the said sale although was made in pen and paper; it was a nominal one and delivery of possession of that sold portion of the tank had not been given. Udaynath died leaving behind his minor son, Kanduri with wife Sunamani in the year 1931. AnantaMohapatra who is the father of Udaynath and grandfather of Kanduri sold Ac.2.13 decimals of land by registered sale-deed, Ext.5. It is stated that Ananta had sold the same as the defacto guardian of Kanduri, who was then a minor. Brundaban possessed entire tank measuring Ac.2.78 decimals and died leaving behind his widow, Ratnamani. In the year 1968Ratnamani sold the suit tank covering an area Ac.2.78 decimals to one Sachidananda Das Goswani by registered sale-deed, Ext.9 and delivered possession. Sachidananda Das Goswami possessed and enjoyed the suit tank and then sold the same to the villagers in the year 1979 by registered sale-deed, Ext.6 and delivered possession. It is stated that Kanduri after attaining majority had sold Ac.0.79 decimals to the father of Defendant No.1, Krushna Chandra Patra by registered sale-deed, Ext.G. That Defendant No.1 then sold the tank to Defendant No.12. It is further stated that during the Survey Settlement Operation in the year, 1976, the suit tank was wrongly recorded in the name of KanduriMohapatra and father of Krushna Chandra Mohapatra i.e. Defendant No.1 jointly.

4. The Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and 12 who are the legal heirs of Kanduri Mohapatra contested the suit. It is stated that Kanduri is the absolute owner of the property after death of the father, Udaynath. In the year, 1931, Kanduri was a minor and his grandfather was incompetent to act as his guardian. So, the sale made by Ananta under Ext.5 was not binding on Kanduri.Said sale was also not for legal necessity. It is stated that after death of Kanduri, villagers made attempt to grab the suit tank by manufacturing documents. Villagers had taken their signatures forcibly on blank papers and utilized the same as the written statement in a previously instituted suit i.e. O.S. No.37 of 1979, which was subsequently withdrawn and the present suit has been filed.

5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings framed as many as twelve (12) issues. Answerin