BASANT KUMAR UDASI Vs. SHYAMLAL AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 u/S 100 C.P.C. assails concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of a piece of agriculture land (hereinafter referred as suit property of the plaintiff) and counter claim put up by the defendant (appellant herein) seeking a decree of ownership based on adverse possession, have both been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the suit in question is that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit seeking restoration of possession of suit property founded on the claim that he is the true owner of the same based upon the compromise decree arrived at in case No. 280 A/76, whereby the suit land vested in favour of the father of the plaintiff declaring him to be a lawful owner and to be in possession of the same. It was pleaded that the name of the father of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record whereafter the name of plaintiff came to be reflected in the said record after the demise of his father. It was further pleaded that adjacent to the suit land, the land of the defendant No. 1 (Basant Kumar Udasi) was situated. The said defendant No.1 had an evil eye over the suit land and, therefore, around 30-32 years ago, defendant No.1 (appellant herein) took forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff. Despite repeated request and protest, when the possession was not restored to the plaintiff, legal notice dated 22.07.2011 was dispatched which was received by the defendant but to no avail. Thereafter, the suit in question was filed.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) filed written statement denying the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. The compromise decree was also denied by the defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) by submitting that the same is not binding upon him as it was passed in a case where he was not impleaded as a party.