RATAN GARAI Vs. HIRALAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1997 and 19.07.1997, respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjher in T.A. No.14 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989 and 13.02.1989, respectively, in T.S. No.46 of 1985 passed by the learned Sub -Judge, Keonjhar.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the Appellant. The defendant is the original Respondent after whose death, his L.Rs. have been arrayed as R -1(a) to R -1(d) in this Second Appeal. Plaintiff 's suit is for declaration that decree passed in T.S. No.19 of 1970 is not binding to him, with further prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant. It was decreed by the learned trial court. In the First Appeal the judgment and decree of the learned trial court have been set aside and the plaintiff 's suit has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

(3.) THE plaint story is that plaintiff, who belongs to Purulia District in the State of West Bengal, came to Keonjhar in 1951 and started his business in partnership with one Kalicharan Sahu. They started one Grocery Shop in Gujuri Market area in 1952. In the following year he started running his own Tea Stall over the suit land with an area of Ac.0.03 appertaining to Plot No.695 under Hal Khata No.137 of Mouza -Hatiatanagar - Bhairabpur. In 1962 he started a Sweetmeat -cum -Tea Stall in the very same place. In the year 1970 he constructed a regular shed over the suit land. In 1971 he took electricity connection to his shed and also obtained licence from the Municipality for his shop in the year 1974. Thus, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the suit land without interference from any quarter. W hen matter stood thus, in 1985 the defendant having no right, title and interest over the suit land collected construction materials in order to raise construction over the suit land. On enquiry, plaintiff could come to know that in a collusive suit (T.S. No.19 of 1970 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar), in which the plaintiff was not a party, a compromise decree was obtained under which the suit land was allotted to the defendant's share.