RAGHUNATH PRUSTY Vs. RAGHUNATH BALIARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for injunction against them restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in respect of the disputed land.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's case in a nut shell is that the disputed property measures Ac. 0. 035 decimals appertaining to plot No. 999 in mauza Srichandanpur wherein plaintiff had 12 annas 9 pies interest and one Bali had rest 3 annas 3 pies interest and they were so possessing peacefully. Said Bali sold his interest over the suit poroperty to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed on 10.7.1979 and with effect from that date plaintiff became the sole owner in peaceful possession of the property. Defendants having no manner of right, title and interest over the same tried to create disturbances over the plaintiff's possession and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) ON these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed as many as 5 issues and recorded the following findings : (a) The story putforth by the defendants that in the family partition Basu Behera got the said plot and Bali Behera got the homestead at village Pichukuli is not believable. (b) The Current Settlement Record -of -Rights stands in the name of Bali Behera and defendants have not adduced any evidence to prove that the said record was erroneous. (c) In view of statutory presumption to the Record -of -Rights, Bali Behera must be held to be the owner of the land. (d) The property in question no longer remains joint in view of the partition in the family. (e) Plaintiff having purchased the land from Bali becomes the full owner of the property and in possession of the same. (f) Basu Behera had no right, title and interest and, therefore, defendants do not derive any title on the basis of their purchase from Basu. On these findings, the suit was decreed. On appeal, the lower appellate Court having affirmed the same, the present second appeal has been filed.