9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor-in-interest of the present Respondents praying for declaration of title and the consequential relief of possession in respect of the property measuring Ac.0.328 decimals in Jobra, P.S. Mangalabag, Cuttack (hereafter 'the property in question'). 3. By the judgment dated 31st August, 1981, the said suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. The said judgment and decree was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 4. By the order dated 27th June, 1991, while admitting this appeal, it was directed by this Court that there shall be interim stay of further proceedings in Execution Case No.205 of 1981 pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack. 5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sever all ties with her and her children if she did not accede to do so. According to the Defendant, in order to maintain her relationship with her husband, she executed the nominal sale deed on 17th May, 1965 in good faith. She claimed to have subsequently executed a deed of cancellation on 4th March, 1968 to the full knowledge of the Plaintiff as well as her husband. 9. The Defendant also claimed that she had constructed a new house on the property in question; got her name mutated in the Municipal records; paid taxes in her name and was staying there continuously for more than 12 years. She further claimed that she had purchased the property from Karim Khan and Fakir Khan out of her own funds and the funds provided by her brothers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit was held to be maintainable. 13. The learned Single Judge has, while concurring with the findings of the Trial Court, specifically dealt with the submission regarding applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It was held that under Section 3 (2) of the said Act there was no prohibition to the property being purchased in the name of the ostensible owner's wife and unmarried daughter. 14. On the question whether the sale deed could be said to be vitiated since it had not been read over and explained to the Defendant, the learned Single Judge discussed the decision in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai AIR 1963 SC 1203 and of this Court in Narayan Mishra v. Champa Dibya (dead) and after her Bhabani Dei 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
