B BALIARSING Vs. BAMDEV MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the disputed land measuring 24' x 9' appertaining to khata No. 93, plot No. 1026 in Markandeswar Sahi of Puri town. He also claimed Rs. 100/as damages from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and damaging any of the trees or plants grown on the suit land.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case, in brief, is as follows: The strip of land in dispute adjoins his house on the west while defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have their houses on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house on plot No. 1027. Defendant No. 6 is the landlord of both the plots Nos. 1026 and 1027. The piece of land on which plaintiff's house is situate was originally leased out to one Jaina Parida, who constructed a house thereon with the permission of the municipality sometime in 1940 and inducted the plaintiff as a tenant in 1943, Subsequently. Jaina Parida sold the house and structures to the plaintiff and reconceived the land to the landlord (defendant No. 6). Plaintiff took the said land on lease from defendant No. 6 in 1945. The suit land which forms a part of plot No. 1026 lying fallow. With the permission of the landlord plaintiff occupied the suit land and raised a garden in the year 1943 and took a regular lease of the same in the year 1945. Defendant No. 4 who was serving as an Amin of the Puri Municipality influenced the Chairman and Executive Officer who issued a notice on him making a false claim that the suit land constituted sweeper's passage and called upon him to remove the garden. Plaintiff, in reply, intimated that having taken lease of the suit land, he has title to the same and the municipality had no right. The municipality forcibly destroyed the fence and plants existing on the disputed land and on 6-3-56 deliberately got some night-soil baskets placed there. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit claiming the aforementioned reliefs.