DAMODAR PATRA Vs. KANCHAN SAHUANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of defendant No. 1, defendants 2 and 3 and 5 are the appellants. The plaintiffs' suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed lands described in items 1 to 14 of the plaint, with a further declaration that the order (Ext. 3) passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on 8-10-48 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs purchased the disputed properties from defendant No. 7 on 4-6-46 by a registered sale deed (Ext. 1 ). Defendant No. 7 had the occupancy right and he had got the melavaram right in 1900 as Bajantri Jagir from the Zamindar of Sharakote on payment of quit rent. Defendants 1 to 6 trespassed upon the disputed lands. A proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. was started, in which possession was declared in their favour.

(2.) THE defendants do not raise any dispute with regard to items Nos. 3 and 13. So the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of these lands. Defdts. 1 to 3 claim title and possession in items 1, 2, 4 and 5 and do not claim any interest in the other lands. Defendants 4 and 5 claim title and possession in items 5 to 12 and 14 and do not claim any interest in the other lands. Defendants 6 and 7 support the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were not substituted. The suit abated against defendant No. 4.

(3.) BOTH the courts concurrently found that defendant No. 7 had occupancy right in the disputed lands and had acquired the melavaram right from the zamindar of dharakote. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 did not establish their title in the disputed lands. The plaintiffs had title and possession within 12 years of the suit. A decree was accordingly passed In favour of the plaintiffs for eviction against defendants 1 to 3 in respect of items 1, 2, 4 and 5. In respect of items 3 and 13 a decree was passed as no contest was raised. In respect of items 6 to 12 and 14 a decree for joint possession with the legal representatives of defendant No. 4 was granted on the finding that the suit abated against defendant No. 4. But despite the partial abatement the suit was competent against defendant No. 6.