UPENDRANATH SINGH Vs. SMRUTI RANJAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A memo of appearance is filed in favour of Mr. B.A. Mahanti, Senior Advocate, to address the Court on behalf of the opposite parties. A written note of submission along with xerox copy of documents have also been filed by the opposite parties. Petitioner files a xerox copy of the plaint for perusal of the Court.

(2.) LEARN counsel for the opposite parties states that he is under instruction to State that the opposite parties are not willing to abide by the proposal given by the petitioner relating to nonalienation of the suit property during pendency of the suit.

(3.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 145 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2, and opposite party No. 3 is the defendant No. 8 in that suit. That suit has been filed, inter alia, for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to a part of plot No. 1272 measuring an area of Ac.1.30 decimals out of an area of Ac.2.60 decimals as per the Schedule A of the plaint. That land has been recorded in Khata No. 1 in Mouza Samangara under Puri Sadar Police Station. It is the admitted position on record that the suit land has ail throughout been recorded in the name of defendant No. 5, i.e., Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Srimandir, Puri and he has been represented through defendant Nos. 6 and 7, i.e. the Managing Committee and the Temple Administrator respectively. Plaintiff claims title and possession over the disputed property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by the eldest son of one Para Dei. The said transferor is not a party to this suit. Plaintiff's case is that originally one Prana Krushna was the lessee under defendant No. 5 having heritable right and interest over the leased property and that suit property was a part of that leased property. Said Prana Krishna transferred some lands including the suit land in favour of one Ghanashyam followed by a sale by said Ghanashyam in favour of one Dhani Dei. After the death of that Dhani Dei, her two daughters namely Haramani and Para Dei succeeded to such purchased land and that includes the suit land. In an amicable partition between Haramani and Para Dei the disputed land fell to the share of Para Dei and, as noted above, the eldest son of that Para Dei on 27.11.1999 sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed. Accordingly plaintiff claims right, title, interest and possession over the case land.