PRAGNYA ROUT Vs. HEMAPRAVA RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 5 in Title Suit No. 280 of 2000 of the Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2003 and 15th March 2003 respectively. The suit was filed by Hemaprava Ray, present respondent No. 1, seeking reliefs as follows :-

(2.) In course of hearing of the petition filed by the respondents for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property, Mr. R. K. Mohanty and Mr. B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the parties, agreed that the appeal which is pending for the last two years might be heard and disposed of on merits. Accordingly the appeal was listed for hearing.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant pleadings of the parties are as follows :- According to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, her husband late Suresh Chandra Ray had purchased the disputed property by a registered sale deed dated 26th October, 1959 from one Chiranjilal. The said property comprised of Ac.0.190 decimals appertaining to Hal Plot No. 1411, Hal Khata No. 273, Unit No. 22, Mirkamal Patna, P. S. Mangalabag situated in Mouza Cuttack Town. The land was a part and parcel of Sabak Plot No. 2660 having a total area of Ac. 1.600 decimals. Out of the said Ac. 1.600 decimals, Chiranjilal had also alienated some land in favour of pro forma defendant Nos. 6 to 11, but then the same is not the subject-matter of the suit. Suresh Chandra Ray after purchasing the aforesaid land, owned and possessed the same as the absolute owner thereof. He had developed the same and constructed a pucca boundary-wall on the North, South and West of his land. He had obtained permission from the Cuttack Development Authority on 20th August, 1985 for constructing a building, but unfortunately before the construction work could commence he expired on 19th September, 1992. After the death of Suresh, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and her son Biswajit in the year 1995 constructed six pucca rooms with asbestos roof on the eastern side of suit plot intending the same to be let out as shop-rooms to different tenants. The said structure was assigned holding No. 551/A-601 of Ward No. 22 by the Cuttack Municipality. As ill luck would have it, Biswajit, son of the plaintiff, also died thereafter leaving his mother plaintiff-respondent No. 1, brother-defendant No. 6 and sisters-defendant Nos. 7 to 11 as the ultimate successors to the suit property. Due to sad demise of the husband and son in close proximity, it is averred, the plaintiff, a widow, could not take any steps for further development of the disputed land and the same remained in the possession of the tenants. During settlement operation the disputed land was recorded in the name of plaintiffs late husband Suresh Chandra Ray and draft record-of-rights was published. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff and her children were staying away from Cuttack such absentee landlord, it is alleged in the plaint, defendant No. 4-respondent No. 5 (Bijoy Kumar Rout) tried to forcibly collect rent from the tenants in respect of the aforesaid shop-rooms. Refusal by the tenants to pay rent to him enraged him and he resorted to muscle power. By exploding crude bombs, he threatened the life and property of the tenants. It was further alleged in the plaint that several criminal cases had been initiated against defendant No. 4 and his associates on the basis of information lodged by the tenants. In the year 1996 defendant No. 4 again threatened the tenants and coerced them to vacate the shop- rooms which fact was also reported to police by filing FIRs. Finally on 28th June, 1996 defendant No. 4 and his anti-social associates forcibly broke open the aforesaid shop-rooms at night, ransacked the same and took over forcible possession thereof. Thereafter defendant No. 4 executed three agreements in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to sell the suit land to them. On the strength of the said agreements, three collusive suits, being T.S. Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of 1992 were filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for specific performance of contracts against defendant No.