SARAT KUMAR PANDA Vs. SASHIBHUSAN TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants before this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (RTC-4), Bhubaneswar in T. S. No. 380 of 2001 and they have called those in question in this appeal. By the said judgment, the suit of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) for declaration of right, title and interest over the property described in A and A-2 of the plaint as prayed for has been decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of a piece of land under hal plot No. 577 described in schedule A-l of the plaint. The land under Plot No. 578 originally belonged to defendant No. 3 who is the cousin brother of the plaintiff and that adjoins the land under plot No. 577. Plaintiff's further case is that he and defendant No. 3 had purchased plot No. 577 and 578, two adjoining plots in the year 1965. During Dushera period of the year 1968, when they were in the village in the district of Bargarh, defendant No. 3 expressed his desire to alienate the land under Plot No. 578 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. It is stated that the plaintiff paid sum of Rs. 5,000/- while agreeing to pay the rest amount before the registration of the document in that regard. The arrangement is said to have been an oral one and that is because of the relationship. Defendant No. 3 thereafter permitted the plaintiff to possess the said piece of land and the plaintiff continued to possess the said land of defendant No. 3 since then. In the year 1969, towards the end, plaintiff cleared the land which was having some wild shrubs and also filled the low lying portion by stone and earth by engaging labourers and spending money from his purse. It is further stated that in January, 1970, the plaintiff constructed a boundary wall with stones on the eastern side of his land and the land of defendant No. 3 and stone pillars were fixed within the short distance of the eastern boundary followed by fencing of the some with a barbed wire and fixing of a gate. It is further stated that on the southern side, the plaintiff constructed stone pillars fenced with barbed wire and there was no necessity to fence the northern side as the adjoining land of one Damani Devi had the green fence in existence. So. the plaintiff claims to have been in possession of his land as well as the land of the defendant No. 3 in one compact block. The plaintiff further states that he planted some trees over his land as well as the land of the defendant No. 3 and in the year 1971, he constructed a pucca house consisting of two rooms with asbestos roof on his land and had dug a well. In the said house, the plaintiff stayed with his family members. In the year 1987, plaintiff again constructed a pucca building on his own land and thereafter in 1988, he also constructed an industrial shed on the land of defendant No. 3 for its utilization in manufacturing plastic and polished doors.