DR. NITYANANDA BEHERA Vs. SURENDRA DEHURI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal calls in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda in R.F.A. No. 14 of 2006 in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jharsuguda in Title Suit No. 32/35 of 1993/98. The trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellant as the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and recovery of possession with permanent injunction. The lower appellate court in the appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendants (respondents) has set aside the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

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

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that he had purchased an area of Ac 0.01 decimals from out of the land under H.S. Plot No. 1224 recorded in Khata No. 1 from one Narayan Dehury and his minor sons by Registered Sale Deed dated 02.12.1966. It is his case that pursuant to the said sale he was delivered with the possession of the said land and continued to be in possession since then. It is also his case that this land he purchased comprises of the land under M.S. Plot No. 604 measuring Ac 0.003 decimals and 604/3947 measuring Ac 0.002 decimals over which he has his pucca building and over the rest he had constructed two khapparelli roofed rooms. The suit land comprises of M.S.Plot No. 604/3947 measuring Ac 0.002 decimals and M.S.Plot No. 604, measuring Ac 0.001 decimal. It is his further case that some time in the year 1991, the father of the defendants requested the plaintiff to allow them to stay on the portion of the land under M.S. Plot No. 604/3947 measuring Ac 0.002 decimals under Khata No. 318 with assurance that they would vacate some time after construction of their house in another place. The plaintiff then permitted the father of the defendants to stay in one of the said rooms. It is further stated that after the death of the defendant's father, the defendants demolished one room out of those khapparelli roofed rooms constructed by the plaintiff and using same building materials, made a boundary wall close and adjacent to the southern wall of the plaintiff's pucca building. It is further alleged that they made holes in the southern wall of the plaintiff's pucca building despite of his protest and that resulted obstruction in proper ventilation to the plaintiff's house. It is further alleged that the father of the defendants prior to his occupation of the room as stated above fraudulently got his name recorded in the Major Settlement so far as M.S. Plot No. 604/3947 is concerned without knowledge of the plaintiff. So, when the defendants openly declared that they would vacate the possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff which their father had undertaken to do, the plaintiff had no other alternative but to file the suit with the relief as stated above.