DURGACHARAN MOHANTY Vs. LOKNATH DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. The Appellant had filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction over the disputed land.

(2.) THE case of the Appellant is that he is the Secretary of an institution called Nigamananda Smruti Mandir and the suit had been filed on behalf of the said institution. Defendants 3. 4 and 5 are the sons of Defendant No. 1 who is the Respondent No. 1 before this Court. The subject -matter of the suit is Ac.0 005 decimals of land having a breadth of 4' and length of 54'. The said disputed land is in Hal plot No. 886 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 33 in Puri town. The institution was established in the year 1946 and the Appellant was one of its founder members. Plot No. 866 to which the suit land appertains previously belonged to Gobardhan Math and in the year 1946 one Banamali Das who was the President of the institution then obtained it on permanent lease on behalf of the institution from Gobardhan Math. Construction of a building on the aforesaid plot was proposed by the institution and accordingly plan was submitted to the Municipality in 1951 for approval. In the said plan the suit land was indicated as a sweeper's passage of the institution. After approval of the plan, the civil construction of the institution was done and since then the disputed land is being used as sweeper's passage; There is a house on the eastern side of the suit land which was purchased by Defendant No. 1 in the year 1969 in the names of Defendants 3, 4 and 5. After such purchase, Defendant No. 1 tried to forcibly encroach upon the suit land for which the suit had been filed. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 being minor sons of Defendant No. 1 did not contest and the guardian ad litem was appointed for them. After attaining majority Defendant No. 3 was noticed, but he did not appear and was set ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, but subsequently the name of Defendant No. 2 was deleted and the said written statement was treated as that of only Defendant No. 1.

(3.) ON consideration of the respective cases of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 12 issues. While answering issue No. 6 the trial court held that the Defendants ate not the owners of the entire suit plot No. 866. Answering issue Nos. 8, 9 and 10 the trial court held that the Plaintiff has title to the suit land and is in possession of the same. On these findings the suit was decreed.