A co-owner can validly alienate their undivided share in joint property, and unilateral cancellation of a sale deed is legally ineffective unless supported by substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The respondent No.1 in this 2^nd appeal (Joginath Sahu) was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 and appellant before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

The respondent No.3 (Bhagaban Sahu) in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant No.2 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 and respondent No.2 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

The respondent No.2 in this 2^nd appeal i.e. Manguli Sahu was the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 and the respondent No.1 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

When during the pendency of the 2^nd appeal, Manguli Sahu expired, then the appeal is continuing between the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 3.

The appellant in this 2^nd appeal (Sanjukta Sahu) was the defendant No.3 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 and respondent No.3 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

3. The suit of the plaintiff - Joginath Sahu (respondent No.1 in this 2^nd appeal) vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 against the defendants before the learned Trial Court was a suit for declaration.

As per the case of the plaintiff, his grandfather was Khali Sahu.

Khali Sahu had three sons i.e. Sanatan Sahu, Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) and Abhiram Sahu.

Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) is the father of the plaintiff (Joginath Sahu). Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) has two sons i.e. plaintiff (Joginath Sahu) and defendant No.2 (Bhagaban Sahu). Defendant No.3 (Sanjukta Sahu) is the wife of the defendant No.2 (Bhagaban Sahu).

The suit properties along with other properties were the ancestral properties of his grandfather (Khali Sahu). After the death of Khali Sahu, the suit properties along with their other ancestral properties devolved upon his three sons i.e. Santan Sahu, Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) and Abhiram Sahu.

On the basis of the partition of the ancestral properties between him (Manguli Sahu - defendant No.1) and his two brothers, the suit properties along with some other properties fell into the share of Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1).

As such, the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 (Manguli Sahu) being the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was the Karta of their joint family. The suit Plot No.222 is Ac.0.02 dec. which is their Bari land, the same adjoining to suit Plot No.223 Ac.0.01 dec. of their Ghara land. The parties are Hindus and their sub-caste is Teli and their profession is business. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are two brothers and they are doing their own separate business at Birat Bazar and Kedarswar Bazar respectively and they (Plaintiff and defendant no.2) are in separate mess.

In the year 1976, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 i.e.

defendant No.1 went to Charibatia for business purpose along with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and stayed there. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are also staying at Charibatia.

The defendant No.1 (Manguli Sahu) has imbalanced mind. So, taki