PURNA CHANDRA PATNAIK Vs. KALIDAS SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by defendant No. 2 from the reversing decision of Shri n. P. Mohapatra, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpnr, in Title Appeal No. 58/8/12 of 1966-67 decreeing the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant-1 from the suit-house standing on plot No. 1786/2519, recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and damages, and alternatively for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. This plot measuring six decimals admittedly stood recorded in the names of four tenants. Two of them, namely, Hari Shankar and santosh Barkk sold it to the plaintiffs by an unregistered sale-deed in 1953 for a consideration of Rupees 200/-, Subsequently to this purchase, the plaintiffs constructed a house thereon and were possessing the same. Defendant-1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit-house in September, 1982, on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/ -. Defendant in collusion with defendant-2 subsequently defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1963. Defendant-2 is an ex-gountia. Plaintiffs, therefore, sent notice of suit to defendant-1, but defendant-1 paid no heed to it. Hence the present suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) THE case of the defendants is that the tenants surrendered this plot to the gountia Mafidar-Lambardar, the late Dasarathi Patnaik, father of defendant-2 and it was then taken over by the Forest Department who constructed a forest-restshed thereon. The understanding with the Forest Department was that whenever the house will not be required by them, they would return it to the Gountiamafidar-Lambardar with the constructions, if any, thereon. In 1930 the Deraghar (rest-shed) constructed by the Forest Department was abandoned as no longer required and In pursuance of the agreement the Gountia-Mafidar, father of defendant-2 was placed in possession of the same along with its site. After the death of Dasarathi Patnaik, defendant-2 became the Gountia-Mafidar and also possessed the same and defendant-1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the same. Thus defendant-2 has title, and defendant-1 has possession as a tenant under the former.