LAXMAN PRADHAN Vs. SHEW BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has impugned the judgment dated 3.10.2007 and decree dated 1.11.2007 passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 12/98 of 2003/2000 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 61/211 of 1997/1993 whereby the title suit of the respondent for ejectment, recovery of possession in respect of suit property and for mesne profit against the appellant, was decreed.

(2.) Precisely, the case of the respondent (plaintiff in the Title Suit) is that the suit land belonged to State of Orissa. It was leased out by the Government in favour of Gadadhar Sahoo on 6.12.1922 for a period of thirty years and the said lease was in force till 6.12.1952. Gadadhar Sahoo failed to pay rent to the State Government and certificate proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1933-34. The suit land was auctioned by the Government and it was purchased by Raibahadur Lokanath Mishra. Raibahadur Lokanath Mishra transferred the suit land in favour of Prasanna Kumari Devi in the year 1941 vide sale-deed (Exhibit- 14). After purchase of the property, Prasanna Kumari Devi remained in possession. She transferred the suit land to Golakh Bihari Kanungo and the suit property was mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 2 of 1948-49. Golakh Bihari Kanungo mortgaged the suit property in favour of respondent (Shew Bai) vide registered mortgage deed on 23.4.1948 (Exhibit-13). Since Golakh Bihari Kanungo failed to pay the mortgaged amount, respondent filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri for recovery of dues in which she succeeded. The said decree was executed and in execution proceeding, respondent got possession of suit property through Court (Exhibit-2 to 4). Thereafter, she continued in possession of the entire suit property with the permanent structure standing over it. She had been letting out a portion of the lease hold property including the suit property to tenants. Respondent renewed the lease deed from 1952 to 1982 and thereafter from 1982 to 2012 and continued to pay land revenue, holding tax, etc. to the concerned authorities.

(3.) She (respondent) was residing at a distance of about two kilometres from the suit property. In her absence, appellant (defendant in the title suit) allegedly trespassed into the suit property in Dec., 1990. which was outhouse and was under her lock and key. He opened a Tiffin shop in the suit property. During the enquiry for renewal of lease, it was revealed on 16.1.1999 that plot No. 1077 as mentioned in the lease, was a road, and necessary correction as accordingly carried out in the lease (Exhibit- 10).