ANNAPURNA BAG Vs. MOTIRAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Sec. 100 Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda in R.F.A. (T.S.) No.1 of 2004.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiffs' case is that one Brundabati, wife of Bansidhar and Rangabati, wife of Hrudananda Naik were the original recorded tenants in respect of the suit land. Brundabati died issueless whereas Rangabati died leaving behind the Plaintiff as her only daughter. The suit property having come from the maternal side of the Plaintiff; she finally succeeded to the same. The record of right was duly corrected by the order passed in Mutation Case No.486 of 1996 and 904 of 1094. The Plaintiff thus remained in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land by paying rent to the State as its owner. It is stated that she has not transferred the suit land to anybody and it had also never been transferred either by Brundabati or Rangabati to any person in any mode such as sale, mortgage, gift etc. and the possession of the same had never been parted with.