SRIHARI JENA Vs. KHETRAMOHAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the 'Ka' schedule land was originally recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiff and defendant. During the life time of the father of the parties he had alienated the same by a registered sale deed dated 25-4-1952 in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff had no male issue for which the defendant had an evil eye on the share of the plaintiff over the ancestral properties. The plaintiff for his future security kept his daughter and grandson in his house which the defendant could not relish and started a number of criminal cases against the plaintiff. The defendant went to the extent of setting fire to the house of the plaintiff as a result of which a case was registered against him for the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. While different criminal cases were pending between the parties, the gentlemen of the village came forward to bring about settlement and a settlement was arrived at. As per the said settlement, 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule properties were exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant. Under the said deed of exchange the 'Ka' schedule land was allotted to the plaintiff and 'Kha' schedule land was allotted to the defendant. After execution of the said deed of exchange on 11-9-71 the parties possessed their respective lands and the plaintiff got the 'Ka' schedule land mutated in his name and during such mutation the defendant did not object. Even after the deed of exchange was executed, the defendant continued to create problem as a result of which an Amin was taken and the land was demarcated. The registration receipt of the deed of exchange was kept with a third party as per consent of the plaintiff and defendant and taking advantage of loss of the said receipt, the defendant again started the trouble resulting in filing of the present suit.

(3.) The defendant-respondent filed his written statement stating that though the deed of exchange was executed in respect of 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule lands, the same was not as per the consent of the defendant. The plaintiff had initiated a false criminal case alleging commission of an offence under Section 436 of the Penal Code which was registered as G.R. Case No. 376 of 1971. Due to the intervention of the gentlemen of the village, it was agreed that the deed of exchange shall be acted upon provided the plaintiff does not pursue the criminal case and acts in such a manner so that the defendant and his co-accused persons get a clean order of acquittal. But after the execution of the deed of exchange, the plaintiff continued to pursue the criminal cases violating the terms of settlement and accordingly the deed of exchange was not acted upon. Since the plaintiff violated the terms of the agreement, the original deed of exchange was not obtained from the office of the sub-Registrar and the same was destroyed in accordance with law.