STATE OF ORISSA Vs. TRILOCHAN SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law and, the relevant question as per Ground No. 3 reads as hereunder : "Whether the appellate Judge is justified in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by accepting additional evidence against the appellant without giving them an opportunity of adducing rebuttal evidence ?

(2.) Plaintiff is Respondent No. 1. He filed Title Suit No. 124 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif. First Court, Cuttack, inter alia, praying for confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of possession and for permanent Injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Plaintiff claimed the said land for himself as well as for the defendant Nos. 5 and 6. The disputed land is described in the Schedule "A" of the plaint, which reads as hereunder: Schedule 'A' District - Cuttack Mouza - Samapurpoda, Samil-Rajabagicha, Khata No. 64. C.S. Plot No. 128. out of this an area Ac. 0.021 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No. 344 as shown in the sketch maps attached to the schedule 'B' and 'C. Defendant No . 1 is the sole contesting defendant and, inter alia, he advanced the plea that the disputed land appertains to C.S. Plot No. 121 and not C.S. Plot No. 128.

(3.) In the trial Court plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, inter alia, on the grounds that the predecessors in interest had no good title to convey it to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6, and the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5'and 6 are not in possession of the suit land. While considering Issue No. 9, i.e.. as to whether the suit property appertains to C.S. Plot No. 121 or 128. the trial Court recorded the finding that it appertains to C.S. Plot No. 121.