MOHANLAL KHETA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved, the appellant, who is the plaintiff before the learned trial court and respondent before the learned lower appellate court has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2000 passed by the learned appellate court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rayagada) in Title Appeal No.2 of 1995 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayagada in T.S. No.4 of 1987 and remanding the matter to the trial court. Respondents are the defendants in the suit and appellants in the Title Appeal.

(2.) THE appellant has filed the suit for declaration that he and his family members/agents/servants have easementary right of way over the suit land to have ingress to and egress from his quarters standing on his plot No.266/1816 under Khata No.208 of Rayagada Nagar, with other consequential reliefs. According to the plaintiff the suit land is a pathway of 15 feet width connected with the P.W.D. road to its west and it is the only access from that road to the plaintiff's quarters standing on his Plot No.266/1816. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that not only the plaintiff and his men but also others residing in the nearby locality use the passage. The plaintiff has asserted that the suit land being in use as a pathway for last 60 years, the plaintiff has acquired easementary right of way over it.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 -State of Orissa and Respondent No.2 -P.A., ITDA, Rayagada contest the suit filing a joint written statement denying the assertions made by the plaintiff. It is denied that there are any quarters over Plot No.266/1816. Those stand on Plaintiff's ancestral land appertaining to Plot No.265 which has been subsequently sub -divided into several plots. It is further alleged that during the last settlement the appellant managed to get Plot No.266/1816 recorded in his name deleting it from Government Khata. It is also claimed that the actual passage used as approach road to the plaintiff's houses on his ancestral land is over Plot Nos.265/2166 and 265/2268 connecting with a public road which is to the adjourning North of plaintiff's Plot No.265. It is denied that the suit land is the only pathway which is being used by the plaintiff and his man for last 60 years and thereby acquiring easementary right in it.