SATYABHAMA BEHURA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed calling in question the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No. 83 of 2011.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that land under suit plot No. 440 measuring an area of Ac.0.034 decimals which includes suit land extending to Ac.0.011 decimals originally belonged to Kalyani Patra, the defendant no.2. The said land was sold by her to different purchasers including Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra son of Gopinath who being dead, his daughter Suprava was a party as defendant no. 3, now deleted. They had purchased Ac.0.017 decimals of land from defendant no. 2 who had delivered possession of the same to the purchaser Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra and his daughter who were thus in possession of the suit land and so also the other purchasers remained in possession of their respective purchased land. It is stated that Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra and his daughter sold Ac.0.011 decimals along with undisputed Ac.0.059 decimals from another plot to the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2056 dtd. 3.6.2000 in total measuring an area of Ac.0.070 decimals. The plaintiff had been delivered with the possession of the same and she claims to be in possession since the date of her purchase i.e. 3.6.2000 having right, title and interest. In the year 2001, the record of right in respect of Ac.0.011 decimals was issued in favour of the plaintiff and she has been paying the rent to the State. When the matter stood thus in the month of June 2006, defendant no. 1 created disturbance in her possession. So, a demarcation case was initiated and when notice was issued to defendant no. 1 although he did not appear yet constructed a boundary wall. It is stated that in the year 2006, defendant no. 2 had again sold Ac.0.008 decimals of land to defendant no. 1 and that is from out of the suit land measuring Ac.0.011 decimals by registered sale deed dated 11.8.2000. So taking advantage of such void sale deed wherein he was clothed with no right, title and interest in respect of the so-called purchased land, he created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The said sale deed is challenged to be void on the face of the earlier sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as holding the field and it is also stated that defendant no. 1 has acquired no right, title and interest by virtue of the same and behind the back of the plaintiff he has mutated the said land in his favour which is nonest in the eye of law. It is alleged that on 15.12.2006, as threat came from the side of the defendant no. 1 for construction of a building over the suit land, the suit had to be filed with the reliefs as claimed.