LUCY NARONA Vs. RAGHUNATH JEW BIJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 85 of 1980-I of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri is the appellant in this appeal against the reversing judgement passed by the second Addl. District Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No. 74,183 of 1983/82. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the present appellant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from cutting and removing the trees standing thereon.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 1 is a deity and plaintiff No. 2 is the head of the institution and marfatdar of the deity. The suit properties are said to be originally belonging to L. G. Naronah who acquired the same by permanent lease on 5-1-1950 from one Durga Charan Jagdevray and thereafter he sold the property to plaintiff No. 1 through plaintiff No. 2 as its marfatdar by a registered sale deed dated 18-10-1965 on receipt of proper consideration pursuant to which the plaintiff was put in possession and he has been possessing the same all through. The disputed plot according to the plaintiffs was a vast sandy area near the sea and was lying waste. After purchase plaintiff No. 2 claims to have reclaimed the said area by raising casuarina and cashew nut plantation as a result of which it became highly productive giving good profits. Alternatively the plaintiffs have claimed that in the event it is found that the suit land does not appertain to their purchased area, they having been in possession thereof for more than the statutory period, have acquired valid title by adverse possession. It has been further alleged that the defendant is the daughter of the said L. G. Naronah who had gifted a portion of the suit plot No. 15 to her in the year 1961. According to the plaintiffs the said area gifted to the defendant was away from the land sold to the plaintiffs which is completely separate having no connection whatsoever with the suit land. It has, therefore, been claimed that the defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land or the trees standing thereon. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant has been laying false claim over the suit land being instigated by some persons against whom the plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 164/79 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying all the plaint allegations. She claims to have got Ac. 75.00 acres of land from her late father by a registered deed of gift dated 20-12-61 and continued to possess the same. She has mutated her name in the Mutation Case No. 55/ 77 and subsequently she has also been recorded in the record of rights in respect of the gifted properties. In a ceiling proceeding 30 acres out of' the aforesaid area of 75 acres were vested in the State Government as ceiling surplus and the defendant was allowed to possess the balance 45 acres of land. Out of the said 45 acres, the defendant has sold away 10 acres each, to one Subash Chandra Samantray and Biswanath Prusty under two separate sale deeds dated 25-3-75 and 31-3-76 respectively. The balance 25 acres of land has been gifted by her to the minor daughter of her brother. Thus the case of the defendant is that she has no subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property and has been unnecessarily impleaded in the suit. On these allegations she prays for dismissal of the suit.