GOURA CHANDRA PADHY Vs. SURYANARAYAN PUNDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal was admitted on 09.07.2003 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession with an ancillary relief of permanent injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule properties measuring Ac.1.27 decimals. It was the case of the appellants as plaintiffs that they purchased the suit land along with land measuring Ac.2.03 decimals by the registered sale deed Ext.1 executed by one late Raghunath Pandit on 13.06.1974 under Ext.1. After purchase, they filed a Mutation Case in 1982 by which day, some property appertaining to plot no.9/1 was sold by the legal heirs of late Raghunath Pandit in favour of the contesting respondents by two sale deeds, certified copies of which are Exts. 2 and 3. In the mutation case, the Tahasildar allowed the mutation with respect to land measuring Ac.2.03 decimals appertaining to plot no.9/1, but did not allow the mutation with regard to the rest of the portion of the purchased land under Ext.1, which is the disputed land in the suit and was stated to be appertaining to plot no.14/1. This led the plaintiffs to file the suit.

(3.) The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that plot no.9/1 was a big patch of land out of which, some portions were acquired by the Government. Ac.2.03 decimals were sold to the plaintiffs under Ext.1 and the balance property was purchased by them. As a matter of fact, some of the defendants-respondents have also sold portion of their land to other persons, as appears from the materials on record. The plaintiffs have also sold some portion of their purchased land from plot no.9/1. The plaintiffs made out a case that even though the plot number has been mentioned as 14/1 in Ext.1, but the said land, as per the boundary descriptions, appertains to plot no.9/1 and not plot no.14/1.