BAIKUNTHANATH BARIK Vs. NILAMANI BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS have filed this appeal against the decision of the trial Court dismissing their suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

(2.) FROM the undisputed genealogy it appears that one Sadhu Barik had three sons. The three defendants represent the branch of eldest son Sibanath; plaintiffs 1 to 6 represent the branch of the second son Jayi and plaintiff Mo. 7 Kamala, being the daughter represents the branch of third son Ninuha. The plaintiffs claim right on the basis of their adverse possession. Plaintiff No.l claims Lot No.I; plaintiffs 2 to 5 claim Lot No. II; plaintiff No. 6 claims Lot No. III and plaintiff No. 7 claims Lot No. IV in Schedule A. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have been in forcible possession of the disputed land separately as indicated above even during the life time of Sibanath, the predecessor in interest of the present defendants. It is claimed that the sons of Sibanath had applied for mutation in their names in Mutation Case No. 224 of 1963 64 where objection was filed on behalf of the present plaintiffs. The Tahsildar initially while allowing the mutation directed that separate possession of the plaintiffs in respect of different lots, as indicated earlier, should be noted. Subsequently, the defendants being apprehensive of the result of field enquiry got the mutation case dropped. However, the plaintiffs filed separate applications for mutation. Those mutation cases were initially allowed, but in appeal filed by the defendants, the cases were remanded for fresh disposal. However, subsequently, the Tahsildar directed the parties to take shelter in the Civil Court. The defendants again preferred Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 1973 which was remanded and subsequently the Tahsildar placed the case records before the Charge Officer, Keonjhar, to take action during the Settlement operation. While the matter stood thus, the defendants forcibly cut and removed the unripe paddy forcing the plaintiffs to file the suit.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues :