SANTILATA GANTHIA Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR MISHRA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellant has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.146 of 2008.

(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.) It is the case of the plaintiff that she purchased the land measuring 20 dec. out of the land under Plot No.476 from Mahani Nayak, the father of the defendant nos.8 and 9 by registered sale deed dated 15.12.1999 and as such remained in possession of the same. She also purchased the land measuring Ac.0.20 dec. under Plot No.474 by registered sale deed dated 30.09.2000 and has been in possession of the same. It is stated that though he actually purchased the land under Plot No.474 in the sale deed dated 30.09.2000, the plot number has been wrongly described as 2091 measuring Ac.0.20 dec. 5 links out of Ac.0.41 dec. It is further stated that this land was wrongly described so far as its plot number is concerned by the vendor though the father of defendant no.4 then had acquired the said land from Jagannath Mishra on 26.04.1966 under a registered sale deed, yet the delivery of possession was given after the said purchase by the plaintiff in respect of the land under Plot No.474. As such, he claims to have been in continuation of possession of the same and after his death his sons who are defendant nos.4 to 6 transferred the same to the plaintiff and handed over the possession. It is also his case that the land under Plot Nos.474 and 476 being adjacent to each other, after purchase, she has amalgamated the land under both the plots and has been in possession of the same. It is stated that the land under Plot No.2091 has been purchased by defenantno.10 from defendant no.7 and he is in possession of the same. When defendant no.1 wanted to take possession of the land under PlotNo.474 by force and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff as also gave threats in that direction, the suit was filed. An alternative plea of acquisition of title over that land under Plot No.474 by adverse possession has also been taken.