BANAMALA DAS Vs. BISHNU DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rourkela in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1991 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Panposh in T.S. No. 9 of 1983.

(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.) Plaintiff's case is that she had purchased the suit lands from defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and Sahadeb @ Butu Gour and his son Panu Gour on different dates and had taken delivery of possession of those purchased lands. Stating in detail the plaintiff claims to have purchased an area of Ac. 0.84 decimals for a consideration of Rs.99.00 followed by delivery of possession by defendant nos. 1 to 3, Butu Gour husband of defendant no. 4 and his son Panu. On 24.4.61, she also claims to have purchased Ac.0.67 decimals from above noted persons for a consideration of Rs.95.00 followed by delivery of possession. It is further stated that on 27.4.61 and 26.4.61 rest portions of the suit land were purchased from those persons for a consideration of Rs.95.00 and Rs.94.00 respectively. After purchase the plaintiff claims to have got the delivery of possession of the said land. It is said that the lands purchased by the plaintiff are portion of plot no. 675 under khata no. 63 of village Kuarnmunda as per the record of Mukherjee settlement. After purchase, the plaintiff possessed the suit land and making application to the Tahasildar has mutated those in her name in total measuring Ac. 2.84 decimals. Accordingly, she had received separate parcha and after mutation of the land, she has been paying the rent to the State regularly. It is next stated that during the rent camp of the current settlement operation when the plaintiff was having ploughing operation on the land, the defendant no. 2 suddenly trespassed and caused obstruction in such ploughing claiming that the suit land being their ancestral land, plaintiff has got no right over the same. Thus finding no other alternative, the plaintiff brought this fact to the notice of the local police and she also appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Then she came to know that the defendants are claiming the entire sabik plot no. 675 and defendant no. 5 was claiming Ac.0.40 decimals by virtue of a registered deed of sale said to have been executed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 and husband of defendant no. 4 as well as his son. The Asst. Settlement Officer examining the claim of the plaintiff and referring to the documents rejected the claim of the defendants. So the plaintiff remained under an impression that parcha would be prepared in her name. Defendant no. 2 in the meantime made an application before the Asst. Settlement Officer showing their possession over the same. When the plaintiff finally got the parcha of the suit land, to her utter surprise she found the noting of possession of the defendants in respect of land under plot no. 1804 under khata no. 229 corresponding to old plot no. 675 measuring Ac. 2.16 decimals. Similarly, in the remark column of the said parcha, the possession of defendant no. 5 was found to have been noted against plot no. 1804/323 measuring Ac.0.40 decimals. It is stated that though the plaintiff purchased Ac. 2.84 decimals of land, she also possessed Ac.0.17 decimals of land out of adjoining Anabadi land and that has been settled in her name to an extent of Ac. 3.01 decimals. Thus, when the defendants having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land and being not in possession created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land sometime in the 1st week of May, 1977, the suit has come to be filed further alleging that the sale of land measuring Ac.0.40 decimals of land under M.S. plot no. 1804/3231 in favour of defendant no. 5 is in-valid one and not at all binding on the plaintiff. The first suit filed was dismissed for default of both sided, the present suit has been brought. At this stage, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 contested the suit by filing the written statement. While traversing the plaint averments, they assert to have not sold the suit land to the plaintiff at any point of time and state that they are in possession of the same continuously. The mutation order is said to have been passed behind their back without any enquiry and due proclamation. The defendants admitted to have sold some portion of the suit land to defendant no. 5. These defendants also alternatively claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession in view of their open, peaceful, long and continuous possession of the suit land for a long time as the owner.