SMT. TRIBENI BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Talcner in R.F.A. No. 3 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Talcher in Title Suit No. 57 of 1998. The plaintiff has been unsuccessful in both the Courts and her suit has been dismissed.

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

(3.) The appellant as the plaintiff claims to have purchased Ac. 1.19 decimals of land as described in the plaint indicating the survey numbers from Lalita Mohan Acharya by registered sale dated 2.9.1995. It is her case that she has been possessing the suit land measuring Ac. 0.05 dec. since then and it was under the possession of said Lalita Mohan Acharya from the time of last sabik settlement of the year 1932. The land purchased by the plaintiff was mutated and she received the R.O.R. for the same. It is further stated that she constructed an outhouse as a part of the dwelling house over the suit land and used it as ingress and egress to the public road. It is also pleaded that the vendor of the plaintiff was using the same as a passage to the land from the public road. The E lain tiff admits that the suit land is a piece of Government land. About fifteen years prior to the filing of the suit a permanent compound wall was built on the eastern line of the said bigger plot segregating the suit land outside the compound and three remained no way to enter the suit land except the entry only for the plaintiff. It is stated that since the time of the vendor the land belonging to the state has been in her possession and thereafter it has been in possession of the plaintiff. So far such open, peaceful and continuous possession asserting the right as of owner claiming title and denying the title of the true owner, it is stated that the title of the State stood extinguished so far as the suit land is concerned and the plaintiff thus seeks declaration of title over the suit land having acquired the same by way of adverse possession.