DULA BEWA Vs. BALUNKI PADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendants 1 to 3 from the reversing decision of the lower appellate Court and arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit land which comprised of 3 decimals out of 16 decimals comprised in Sabaka plot No. 10 appertaining to sabaka Khata No. 51 which respectively correspond to Hal Plot No, 8 in Hal. Khata no. 7 of Mouza Jatioatna.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to one Duti padhan. His widow for herself and as guardian of a minor son together with a major son sold the suit land to one Chaitan Roy under a sale deed dated 16-71940 (Ex. 9 ). The letter's son sold the same along with other disputed land to one dhani Jena on 15-7-1957 (Ex. 6 ). This Dhani Jena sold the same to the plaintiff on 24-1-1961 (Ex. 51. Subseauent to this purchase a Proceeding under Section 145 criminal P. C. commenced with regard to the suit land between the plaintiff and defendants which terminated in favour of the defendants that is to say the suit land was declared to be in possession of the defendants on the date of the preliminary order. Prior to the finalisation of the proceeding under Section 145 criminal P. C. , the present suit has been instituted for the aforesaid relief on 14-8196o.

(3.) THE defendants-appellants are respectively the widow son and daughter of the deceased son of the original owner Duti Padhan. The suit land is a part and parcel of the homestead of the defendants. Their main defence is, as appears from paragraphs 3 to 8, 10 and 11 of their written statement, that they have been in possession of the suit land as a Part of their homestead exclusively and in their own right ever since the sale transactions commencing from 1940 onwards. Though they have not used the expression 'adverse possession' in their written statement it is obviously indicated that notwithstanding transfer of title successively to Chaitan. Dhani and the plaintiff their absolute and exclusive possession had remained uninterrupted.