BASANTI KARAN Vs. SANKAR PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Balasore in T.A. Case No. 006 of 1990, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif in O.S. No. 85 of 1984. The suit of the plaintiff having been decreed by the Trial Court directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the land covered under Plot No. 1025/2616 measuring Ac. 0.15 decimals and under plot No. 1038 to the north-west measuring an area Ac. 0.01 decimals under holding No. 556 of village Mandara Sahi, the same has been set aside by the Lower Appellate Court.

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

(3.) The plaintiffs case is that the suit land is a piece of Anabadi land belonging to the State of Odisha described as Patita. It is stated that on 19.5.1981. Tahsildar, Jaleswar leased out 37 decimals of land to the plaintiff including the suit land and the plaintiff with her husband since then have been possessing the same. He prepared a betel vine on plot No. 1025/2616 and had made a ditch on it for supply of water to the betel vine. The ditch has been made on plot No. 1038 and 1039. The plaintiff is said to be a settled rayat of village Mandara Sahi prior to the lease. The plaintiff claims to have been paying rent regularly and the tenant ledger is said to have been prepared in the name of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant having no manner of right, title and possession forcefully entered into the suit land on 7.7.1989 after cutting the northern side fence and constructed a temporary hut. On protest, the plaintiff was threatened. It is further stated that in course of time, the defendant again encroached Ac. 0.10 decimals of land on plot No. 1025/2616 damaging the beaten vine of the plaintiff. So finally, the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the possession of the land under encroachment of the defendant. The defendant in that suit came.up with the specific case that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and it was lying fallow. The defendant claims to be a landless person and accordingly the land measuring Ac. 0.11 decimals in plot No. 1025/2616 to be in his possession for last 20 years. It is stated that he had also made betel vine and a house over there, besides planting trees. He further claims that the possession has been recorded in the record of right of the Major Settlement. The land under plot No. 1038 and 1039 is said to having a tank used by the defendant and other villagers.