KAILASH PANDEY Vs. SAHADEV SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/1992 and 14/8/1992 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in title Appeal No.27 of 1991. By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Respondent (Plaintiff) under Sec. 96 of the Code has been allowed whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 14/8/1991 and 24/8/1991 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Koraput in Title Suit No.36 of 1991 have been set aside and the suit filed by the Appellant, as the Plaintiff, has been dismissed and thus, he has been non-suited.

(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 Sribachha Mishra was the owner of the suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint. He had entrusted the Plaintiff for looking after of his immovable property including the suit land and permitted him to construct a house on the land and stayed therein. The Plaintiff was residing in that land at Semiliguda till March, 1964. The Defendant, who was earlier known to the Plaintiff, came and stayed on a portion of the suit land on the western side by putting up a hut. The hut got burnt in the year 1965. So, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to permit to occupy the suit land by constructing a kuchha house over there with an assurance that he would vacate the same when would be so required by the Planitiff. The Plaintiff accordingly permitted the Defendant to do so over the land specifically described in Schedule-B of the plaint, which is a part of Schedule-A. The Plaintiff's further case is that by registered sale deed dtd. 16/3/1981 on payment of consideration of Rs.2000.00, he purchased schedule-A land from said Sibachha. Thus, he became the owner of the entire land in Schedule-A which includes Schedule-B land. Pursuant to the said sale, he has also mutated the said land in his favour. The Plaintiff, with a view to remodel his house and utilize the entire land, when requested the Defendant to vacate that the portion of Schedule-B land in his occupation, the Defendant, then asserted his title over the suit property. So, the suit came to be filed.