A VENKAT RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a reversing judgment. The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1988 against the State-respondent for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property appertaining to Plot Nos. 7 and 40 in Khata No. 513 of village-Ralaba measuring Ac. 0.250 and Ac. 0.050 respectively by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs case is that he has been in continuous cultivating possession over the case land since 1955 and raising crops. During the last settlement, the suit land has been wrongly recorded as 'Rasta' under the 'Paramboke' khata of the Government. The suit plot originally a part of old survey No. 124 was shown as cultivable land belonging to different rayats. Subsequently a road from Haladiapadar to village Ralaba was constructed from the rayati lands and the said road passed on the eastern side of the suit land. The plaintiffs cultivating possession over the suit land has been reflected in the 'Adangal' prepared in the year 1955. The recording of the suit land as 'Rasta' in the R.O.R. published in 1976 is wrong. It is stated that by virtue of his long, continuous uninterrupted possession as of right over the suit land to the knowledge of the true owner for more than the statutory period he has acquired title over the same by adverse possession. On 28.10.1988 the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 2-Tahasildar, Konisi published a notice to lease out the said land to the general public for agricultural purpose as Government surplus land fixing the date of auction to 02.11.1988. The plaintiff approached the Revenue Inspector, who informed that notice has been issued as part of the process to evict the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for the aforesaid relief.

(2.) The defendant-respondents filed a written statement pleading that the suit land was a village site 'Paramboke' and recorded as 'Rasta'. The plaintiff was never in cultivating possession over the same. The land being recorded as Rasta, the plaintiff's encroachment is objectionable. It was also pleaded that during the recent settlement operation the suit land was found to be used as road and accordingly the record of right was prepared. It was also contended that the plaintiff cannot prove his possession and title on the basis of 'Adangal'.

(3.) The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed six issues and on the basis of the finding given on issue Nos. 2 and 5 came to hold that the plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession since 1955 for more than statutory period as of right and therefore perfected his title by way of adverse possession and accordingly decreed the suit.