HARIHAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for determination before this Court is whether the plaintiff's suit based on adverse possession in respect of the suit land should be allowed since by the reversing order, the lower appellate Court has decided the case against the plaintiff and hence this second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff claims that his late father Artatrana Misra had been adversely possessing the Government land bearing Sabik plot No. 2595 under Khata No.1167 of 1928 settlement measuring an area of 0.46 decimals corresponding to Hal Settlement plot No. 2040, Khata No. 77 of 1977 settlement measuring 0.43 decimals of mouja Biramchandrapur In the district of Puri. It is the further case of the plaintiff that although in 1928 settlement this land was recorded as 'Sarba Sadharana', yet in the year 1930 his father late Artatrana Misra reclaimed the land and made it fit for cultivation and grew paddy crops and since then the father of the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land in his own right, title and interest which subsequently came into the possession of the plaintiff. In the Hal Settlement although the note of forcible possession of his father Artatrana Misra was mentioned, yet in the R. O. R. the nature of land was recorded as 'Gochar' and the R. O. R. was prepared showing Government as the owner of the land. Aggrieved by this recording the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction over the suit land.

(3.) THE lower Court framed as may as 7 issues but, the main issue was Issue No. 4 under which after discussing the evidence on record it arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession. This finding of the trial Court was reversed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was not credible. With regard to the evidence of PW 1, the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court observed that he was not born by 1930 when as alleged, his father Artatran Misra reclaimed the land. PW 2's evidence was disbelieved on the ground that there was no evidence before the Court to hold that the said witness had his land at or near the disputed land. PW 3's evidence was discarded on the ground that he could not have any knowledge about the possession of Artatran Misra in 1930 because of his tender age by that time.