SARAT CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. CHANDRAMANI BOWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal against the affirming decision of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The disputed property happens to be 10 decimals of homestead land appertaining to plot No. 444 under Khata No. 109 of village Kuchinda.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the property belonged to one Narayan. Laxmidhar is said to have died without issues. The plaintiff happens to be Madhusudan's son. Narayan had a son. It is alleged that the son pre-deceased Narayan and thereafter Narayan died. According to the plaintiff the three brothers were joint and as Narayan and his son died the entire property came to the plaintiff by survivorship. The plaintiff applied for mutation. One Daitari Mohanty objected and subsequently managed to carve out the disputed portion of the property into a separate plot in his name. Daitari is said to have died leaving no heirs in 1964. The defendant claiming to be his widow raised a dispute regarding possession of the property. In a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was instituted the defendant's possession was upheld. Therefore, the plaintiff came up with the suit.

(3.) THE defendant on the other hand contended that Narayan was not the brother of Madhusudan or Laxmidhar. They were of different branches. Narayan was adopted by one Radha Mohan and long after adoption Narayan acquired the property in dispute together with several other items of property while he was serving as Tahasildar in the ex Bamara State. Upon Narayan's death without leaving any heirs, the property escheated to the State. The agricultural lands were settled with different tenants by the Ruler's administration, but the homestead was settled with the plaintiff and Daitari on the basis of half and half. Salami was separately deposited by the settlees and the property was also demarcated. The property in dispute represents Daitari's portion whereupon Daitari raised further constructions. Upon Daitari's death the defendant as widow succeeded to the property. Daitari also left behind a will in her favour. The defendant claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.