AKHANDALMANI MAHADEV Vs. DAYANIDHI ALIAS DAITARI MULIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2, 4, 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(ka), 5(kha), 8, 11 and 13 are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 194 of 1986and rest of the defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 234 of 1986. Both the appeals have been filed against a reversing judgment.

(2.) THE suit out of which these appeals arise was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the same except to realise rent from the plaintiff, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from, interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 7 filed one set of written statement whereas the defendants 9 to 13 filed written statement separately. Before filing of the written statement some of the parties were impleaded on death of some parties and their legal heirs were substituted. However, in the written statement of defendants 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5(Kha) and 6 the plaint averments were denied. According to the aforesaid defendants, Birabar Mohapatra was the Darpattadar in respect of the homestead land appertaining to plot No. 1649 measuring an area of 40 decimals and Raghunath Sen is the Pattadar in respect of the said plot. Birabar purchased the Darpattadari interest from one Sadhabi Bewa who was recorded as Darpattadar in respect of the suit plot. After purchase, the plaintiff got his name mutated in the Zamindar's sherista as well as in the municipal papers. A kutcha house was standing on the suit land and Birabar used to stay there. Two to three years prior to his death, Birabar went to his village and thereafter the said kutcha house got damaged and ultimately collapsed. Since no one possessed the disputed property after Birbar's death in his village, Raghunath Sen took over possession of the land. It is further contended on behalf of the said defendants that another plot of land situated to the west of the suit land bearing plot No. 1651 extending to an area of Ac. 0.054 decimals belonged to Raghunath Panda who was also recorded as a Darpattadar. The Pattadar Raghunath Sen took delivery of Khas possession of the said plot of land after obtaining a decree for eviction and thus remained in possession of the disputed land plot No. 1650 as well as 1651. The pattadar intended to build a temple for the deity on plot No. 1650 and further intended that Chitrakars of Haripur should take leading part in the management of the deity. Respecting the intention of the Pattadar, a registered agreement was executed by the Chitrakars on 8.12.30 and a temple was constructed by collecting subscription and deity Radha Gobinda Jew was installed therein and the Chitrakars of Haripur village took over management of the temple and Sevapuja of the deity. On 24.4.45 the Pattadar Raghunath Sen executed a registered deed of gift in respect ofplot No. 1650 in favour of the deity through Marfatdar Charu Chandra Sen (defendant No. 3) and others. Sometimes thereafter, the Marfatdar and the villagers wanted to install the deity Akhandalamani Mahadeb on the land appertaining to plot No. 1651 which is adjacent to plot No. 1650. The Pattadar also executed a registered gift deed on 22.7.57 in respect of the suit plot in favour of the Chitrakar's community. After the gift deed was executed a pucca temple has been constructed and some thatched rooms standing on a part of the two plots were temporarily leased out to tenants on payment of rent. It is specifically pleaded by the said defendants that after death of Birabar neither his son Jaikrishna, the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff ever possessed the suit land.