KARTIK ROUT Vs. MAMATA RANI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/2017 and 20/7/2017 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.163 of 2013 setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 26/9/2013 and 8/10/2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Baleswar in Title Suit No.199 of1993-I. One Paluni Dei as the Plaintiff in Title Suit No.199 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Baleswar arraigning Kanduru Mohan Sahu and Ram Chandra Sahu as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively besides one Puntimani Dei and the present Appellants as well as Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as the Defendants. Paluni, the sole Plaintiff having died during pendency of the suit as also when Kanduru Mohan Sahu and Rama Chandra Sahu, Defendant No.1 and 2 died during the suit, the legal representatives of Kanduru Mohan and Rama Chandra came to be impleaded as the Plaintiffs and they prosecuted the suit which stood dismissed. They being non-suited and deprived of being getting the reliefs had carried Appeal under Sec. -96 of the Code, which has been allowed. Therefore, the present Appellants who were the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 before the Trial Court and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the First Appellate Court have filed this Second Appeal.

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

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that the suit land originally stood recorded in the name of one Hadi Das. Said Hadi Das in order to meet his legal necessity sold the suit land to Paluni by registered sale-deed dtd. 17/2/1937. After purchase, Paluni possessed the said purchased land keeping it under the enclosure. The original sale-deed was with her husband, Rama Chandra Sahu, the Defendant No.2 (since dead). When said Paluni was in possession, settlement operation commenced in the village and that was being looked after by her husband-Rama Chandra and her elder brother-in-law. It is stated that taking advantage of simplicity of Paluni, they managed to get the purchased land recorded in their name with a note of possession in favour of one Gobinda Rout against one plot of land i.e. Hal Plot No.278. That Gobinda was the husband of the foster daughter of Rama Chandra; taking advantage of the situation, when Gobinda and his family members tried to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land by removing bamboo trees and other tress therefrom, Paluni, the original Plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.