ASIT KUMAR SWAIN Vs. KRUPASINDHU SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails correctness of order passed by learned Subordinate Judge. Kamakshyanagar allowing prayer of ppp. party No. 2 for impletion as a defendant.

(2.) FACTUAL back -drop is as follows : A suit was filed by present petitioner for declaration of his right title and interest over suit land. Primarily his case as inferable from the plaint is that defendant had two daughters ; elder one was married to Gobinda, natural father of plaintiff; since the defendant had no son to look after him and his property, he kept Gobinda, in his house since his marriage to look after the properties; Gobinda was managing the family out of income from agriculture and his salary. He also bore entire expenses of marriage of Khulana, the younger daughter of defendant. After Gobinda had a second son, Krupasindhu wanted to adopt plaintiff in order to perpetuate his line of succession, to which natural parents of the plaintiff agreed; on 15 - 5 -1973 defendant with the consent of his wife took plaintiff on adoption after performance of requisite formalities ; out of love and affection, defendant on the very day of adoption orally gifted lands described in the schedule of plaint and thereafter plaintiff was in possession thereof there was no registered document and during current settlement operation name of defendant had been recorded in the record of rights ; even though due to non -registration of the deed plaintiff had not acquired valid title, because of peaceful, continuous and open possession of land by plaintiff for a period of 12 years, he had acquired title over the gifted land by adverse possession; on 22 -11 -1989 taking avantage of recording of name of defendant in the record -of -rights. he wanted to transfer some of the suit lands and therefore, filing of the suit was necessitated.

(3.) MAIN plank of petitioner's argument, is that defendant having accepted plea of plaintiff in to which amouted to compromise, disposal of application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code without considering the compromise is improper. Learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 however, submitted that order of learned Subordinate is proper; It is further submitted that a similar application filed was subject -matter of challenge in Civil Revision No. 701 of 1990 diposed on 7 -5 -1991 where I had declined to interfore, and the same course should be adopted in respect of the present revision application.