TIMA ALIAS ABHIMANYU SARKAR Vs. NANDA KISHORE PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 2 is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment so far as part of the relief sought for by the plaintiff is concerned. Plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration of title/possessory title, confirmation of possession over the suit land and for permanent injunction.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is that the suit land was originally a fallow land of Banki Khasmahal which was acquired by defendant No. 1 Jadunath Mohapatra under an agreement between Tahasildar, Banki and on the strength of such agreement pending formal grant of lease the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said land by the Tahasildar on payment of certain sum in lieu of rent and possession was delivered to him. Defendant No. 1 constructed a small house thereon and carried on business in the name and style 'Hataghar'. Though the defendant No. 1 had not been granted formal lease in respect of the suit land he possessed the same and while in possession alienated the same on 19.2.1965 in favour wife of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed and delivered possession. Further case of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is that after coming into possession of the said land he has been paying rent and cess, panchayati tax, N.S.C. tax etc. Claim of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is that he has become a lessee in respect of the suit land on the strength of his purchase and such right has accrued to him on the ground that the State has been accepting rent from him and he has been enjoying rights of a lessee. Since defendant started disturbing his possession, suit had been filed for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned 2nd Addl. Sub Judge, Cuttack, framed eleven issues and decreed the suit in part by declaring the plaintiffs title over the property. However, the learned Court did not find possession with either of the parties and accordingly did not allow other prayer of the plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff carried an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack which was allowed directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to recovery of possession. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. Cuttack is impugned before this Court.