BASANTI PRUSTY Vs. MANORMA SAMANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellants against a confirming decision. Suit was filed for eviction of the defendant from ' Kha' Schedule land and tor damages at the rate of Re. 1/ - per day. According to plaintiff's case, she had purchased 'Ka' Schedule land by registered sale deed dated 21.11.1981 and thereafter constructed a compound wall on all sides leaving a space of 306 square links as described in Kha' Schedule towards the north. After about one year, the defendant purchased land towards north front the very same vendor on 10.3.1983 and started construction of a 'chalia' on 'Kha' Schedule land. The plaintiff measured the land through an Amin and such measurement indicated that 'Kha' Schedule land was within the land purchased by (he plaintiff and the defendant had agreed to remove the shed, but subsequently, refused to do so resulting in the present suit.

(2.) DEFENDANT in her written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. She pleaded that the plaintiff did not leave any space beyond her boundary wall on the northern side and the defendant was in possession of the land purchased by her.

(3.) THE present defendant -respondent has filed a suit numbered as Title Suit No. 182 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division). First Court. Cuttack. claiming title and possession in respect of Ac.0.006 decimals of land towards south of the northern side boundary wall of the present appellant. The present appellant has filed a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 . Code of Civil Procedure, for producing the aforesaid plaint as an additional evidence. The appellant has also sought to admit certain other documents namely. Records -of -Rights in the names of the appellant, respondent and another, as additional evidence.