CHANDRAMANI BEHERA Vs. SUNALI RAUTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has challenged the Judgment dated 19.8.1999 & decree dated 3.9.1999 of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in Title Appeal No. 3/20 of 1999/98 thereby confirming the Judgment dated 5.5.1998 & decree dated 25.6.1998 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar passed in Title Suit No. 72 of 1990 vide which the suit for permanent injunction filed by the Appellant & also counter claim preferred by the Respondents No.2 & 3 seeking declaration of right, title & interest & permanent injunction was dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT in this appeal is the Plaintiff is the Title suit. In brief, case of the Plaintiff is that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant, in which Nisamani Mohanty was recorded as occupancy tenant, In order to deprive the Plaintiff of his right of possession, Nisamani Mohanty entered into a compromise with Defendants No. 2 and 3 (Respondent No. 2 and 3 herein), who were never in possession over the suit land and alienated a portion of the suit land in their favour through proceedings under Section 9 of the Orissa Land, Reforms Act (hereinafter called 'Act') though said proceedings were not maintainable. After such compromise, Defendants No. 2 and 3 relinquished their alleged possession over an extent of Ac. 0.290 decimals of the suit land in favour of the heirs of Nisamani Mohanty, namely; Purna Chandra Mohanty and Prakash Chandra Mohanty. The said two persons relinquished their possession to the extent of AC.0.070 decimals without any right to alienate the suit scheduled land after the said compromise purchasers of the suit land from Puma Chandra Mohanty and Prakash Chandra Mohanty were never in possession of the suit property nor they acquired any title over the same. Defendant No.1 never took possession of the suit land from the purchasers and did not acquire any title and ownership rights. Further case of the Plaintiff is that Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property as owners but they were trying to forcibly dispossess him from the impugned land. Hence, he filed the suit.

(3.) ON the pleading of the parties the Trial Court framed ten issued and four additional issues. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. It was held that the compromise entered into between Nisamani Mohanty and Defendants No.2 and 3 in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act was validly recorded by the Revenue Officer as the claim of 1/5th share of the land was from a person of general caste, that is Mohanty family and therefore the provisions of Section 22(A) and 23 of the Act were not attracted as they related to alienation of lands by the Scheduled Tribes. The Trial Court observed that Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the land in suit as a tenant under Nisamani Mohanty as he had not produced any document to support his case, whereas Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 which were relied upon by the Plaintiff disclosed that Nisamani Mohanty was the recorded owner in respect of the land in suit and Plaintiff was in illegal possession over the same. While, concluding that Plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the land in suit, it observed that Plaintiff had made contradictory statement as P.W.1 and had failed to produce any document to show that he was in physical possession of the land in suit. The first Appellate Court vide its impugned Judgment dated 19.8.1999 and decree dated 3.9.1999 has endorsed these findings.