BHAGABAN MAJHI SAMANTA Vs. DINABANDHU SINGH SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) DEFENDANTS in Title Suit No. 96 of 1992 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Berhampur have preferred this second appeal as against the confirming judgment of the District Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati, Berhampur passed in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1997 vide the impugned judgment dated 30th March, 1999. Plaintiff is the respondent.

(3.) TO prove their respective case, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. In that respect plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, whereas defendants examined three witnesses including defendant No. 1 as D.W.1. In course of the trial, defendants also advanced evidence relating to relinquishment of the interest by Harihar in favour of the defendants' family as per Ext.A. Though the trial Court refused to consider the same on the ground that, that was an unregistered deed of relinquishment but on due perusal of the same learned District Judge construed the same to be a memorandum acknowledging previous partition which needs no registration. On assessment of evidence on record, while the trial Court found the case of the plaintiff to have been proved relating to right, title, interest and possession with Harihar and his son Nityananda and, therefore, on the basis of the registered sale deed with the plaintiff, the trial Court disbelieved the plea advanced by the defendants of having any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The first appellate court also took care to go through the evidence and the contention advanced by the defendants and on a thorough scrutiny of the same learned District Judge concurred with the factual finding recorded by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) to record the finding that a valid title and possession passed to the plaintiff with respect to the disputed case land.