RABINDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. SOURI PRASAD MALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners applied to be impleaded as parties in the suit. The same having been refused, this Civil Revision has been filed assailing the order of the trial Court.

(2.) SUIT is in respect of 19 decimals out of 57 decimals of land in plot No. 555, Disputed land is claimed to be the middle portion of the entire area. It is claimed by plaintiff that the entire area was recorded as 'Puratana Patita' belonging to Raja of Burdhwan in Kujang Estate. In the year 1939, the same was settled with one Binakar Behera on occupancy basis. Binakar Behera being ettled raiyat of the village, he acquired occupancy right over the land and continued to pay rent in respect of the same being in cultivating possession. By the time Binakar died in the year 1970,his right as occupancy raiyat was protected Under Section 8 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Jamabandi was also filed in favour of Binakar. On death of Binakar, plaintiff purchased the land measuring 57 decimals from Simananda and Jagabandhu, two out of three sons of deceased Binakar, by registered sale deed dated 16 -1 -1984. He got delivery of possession and continued to enjoy the same. Defendant No. 2 is natural born third son of Binakar. When plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 2 is the 3rd son, he approached defendant No 2 for sale of his 1/3rd share to plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed on 20 -10 -1986 receiving a consideration of Rs. 1,800/ - but the same was not registered Defendant No. 2 had also signed the notice Under Section 31 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, but the sale deed could not be presented for registration. In spite of promising to get the sale deed registered, defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 21 -10 -1986 in respect of the suit land, in respect of his 1/3rd interest in the land of Binakar. Since title had already passed in respect of the entire 57 decimals, plaintiff is paying rent for the same. When defendant No. 2 lastly refused to register the sale deed and when defendant No. 1 on the strength of the registered sale deed thereatened to dispossess the plaintiff, the suit was filed for a decree for specific performance of contract, directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to register the sale deed already executed on 20th October, 1986 for which the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to bear the expenses and for declaration of his possession on the suit land, or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 contested the suit. in his written statement it has been asserted amongst others that he purchased the disputed land on behalf of the villagers who were using the land as 'Sarbasadharan rasta' which was also recorded as 'Puratana Patita' and Simannda recognising the communal character of the land has sold it reflecting interest of the villagers.