NIRANJAN PATRA Vs. RAMARANI PATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Talcher in R.F.A. No. 11 of 2010 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Talcher in C.S. No. 13 of 2003 filed by the respondent No. 1 and two others as the plaintiffs against this appellant as the defendant No. 2. The said suit of the present appellant against the respondent No. 1 having been decreed and the same having further being confirmed by the lower appellate court, the present move is before this Court by carrying the second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(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 court below.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 was the owner in possession of land under Sabik Plot No. 1614 measuring Ac.0.15 dec. He had sold an area of Ac.0.08 dec. of land to one Bansidhar Sahoo from its eastern side and thereafter on 01.01.1977, he sold the rest area Ac.0.07 dec. to defendant No. 3 for valuable consideration and had delivered possession to him. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 15.02.1977, she purchased the aforesaid land from defendant No. 3 by a registered sale deed and took delivery of possession and as such she remained in possession over the same by having the fencing by putting stones all around. However, in view of her absence in the Hal Settlement Operation and as she could not attend and take timely step, the suit land got recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 though defendant No. 1 had no title or possession over it. It is alleged that taking advantage of such recording, the defendant No. 2 with an eye over the property again got a sale deed executed from defendant No. 1 in his favour. When on 19.01.2003, he came over the land with his labourers for making measurement, the plaintiff protested but then the defendant No. 2's response came that he would go for construction of a building over there by force which led to the filing of the suit. The vendor of the plaintiff as also the first purchaser of the suit land from defendant No. 1 supported the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1, who is the original owner in his written statement denying to have sold the land to defendant No. 3 at any point of time, has also denied to have given delivery of possession of the suit land to him. He claimed to have remained in possession of the suit land till the year 1991 and then to have sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 by registered sale deed and to have delivered possession of the suit land to him. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit banking upon the averment of the defendant No. 1 in his written statement that the suit land was never sold to defendant No. 3 by him and, therefore, defendant No. 3 had derived no title and possession over the suit land and his subsequent transfer to the plaintiff by registered sale deed has no value in the eye of law.