IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations of fraud, misrepresentations and undue influence in pleadings and evidence must be clear, definite and specific but general allegations in that regard are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.—This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellants of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and they were the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988.

The respondents of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and they were the respondents before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988.

The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the appellants in this 2nd Appeal) against the defendants (those are the respondents in this 2 nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 was that, Surendra Pradhan was their common ancestor. Surendra Pradhan died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Manohar Pradhan and Shyama Pradhan. Manohar Pradhan died leaving behind his successors. Shyama Pradhan died leaving behind his wife Kerteki, one daughter and one son i.e. Bimala and Dayanidhi. Bimala is the defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Bimala.

The suit properties were originally belonged to Manohar Pradhan and Shayama Pradhan, those are the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit properties were jointly recorded in the name of Manohar Pradhan and the son of Shyama Pradhan i.e. Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. While, Manohar Pradhan and Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan were the joint owners over the suit properties Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan sold the suit land described in Schedule “A” of the plaint to Manohar Pradhan by executing and registering a sale deed on dated 02.02.1951. Accordingly, Manohar Pradhan possessed the suit land by purchasing the same from Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. But, that Manohar Pradhan died in the year 1973 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his successors. In the finally published Major Settlement R.o.R, the suit properties were recorded in favour of the plaintiffs, but, the possession of the defendant No.1 was noted in the remarks column thereof, though the defendant No.1 has no right, title, interest and possession in the same. When the defendant No.1 tried to enter into the suit properties and created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, then, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 against the defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties described in schedule “A” of the plaint and to evict the defendants from the same and also to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties along with other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for.

The defendants challenged the suit of the plaintiffs by filing their written statement jointly denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint by taking their stands therein that:

Manohar Pradhan and Shyama Pradhan were two brothers. There was no joint family status between them except the joint R.o.R. After the death of Shyama Pradhan in the year 1933, Manohar Pradhan became the care taker of his minor son i.e. Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. Because, by that time, Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan was aged about 5 to 6 years. Taking the advantage of the minority of Dayanidhi and simplicity of his older widow mother Kerteki, Manohar manipulated to execute the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 in respect of the suit properties from Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan, which was without the knowledge of the defendants, as the defendants came to know about the said manipulated deed of transfer after receiving the notice of the present suit. Dayanidhi had not executed that sale deed dated 02.02.1951 in respect of the suit properties in favour of Manohar Pradhan (predecessor of the plaintiffs) knowingly, because b