GUNADHAR MAHATA Vs. SATISH CHANDRA MAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant against the judgment of reversal.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit alleging that 1.02 acres of land in plot No.1/110 with other lands originally belonged to Bijoy Krishna Pal who sold the same to his sons namely Nanda Dulal Pal and Chitta Ranjan Pal through a registered kobala dated 23rd September, 1974. While Nanda Dulal Pal and Chitta Ranjan Pal were possessing the same in ejmal, they sold .31 acres with incomplete construction thereupon to the plaintiffs by two kobalas both dated 20th of April, 1994. THE defendant No.1 forcibly trespassed and constructed a Challa in a portion of said purchased land being suit land as described in Schedule B of the plaint. Hence was the suit for recovery of khas possession by evicting defendant No.1 therefrom. Appellant/defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying material allegations and contending inter alia that since 1st of March, 1972 this defendant and others started to possess different portions of entire 1.02 acres of land in suit plot No.1/110 and that those possessors including defendant No.1 have acquired title in their respective portion of land by way of adverse possession and that the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession in any portion of suit plot.

(3.) MR. Biswaranjan Bhakat, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that learned Lower Appellate Court did not state as to why he accepted Commissioners report disregarding learned Trial Courts observations when learned Commissioner did not cover all the points of the writ and was found to be partisan. In this connection he has submitted that though the report of learned Commissioner was accepted during trial but it was not binding on the Trial Court at the time of final decision of the suit. In support of his aforesaid contention he referred the case law of Sankar Kumar and another vs. Mohanlal Sharma reported in AIR 1998 Orissa page 117.