LORD JAGANNATH MAHAPRABHU Vs. LAXMIKANTA PRADHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants against the reversing judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No. 62 of 1995. The respondents as the plaintiffs has filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land measuring Ac.1.92 decimals come under seven plots in the Town of Puri. 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.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 2 Lord Jagannath Mahapravu - Bije - Shri Purusottam Khetra, Puri is the owner of the suit land whose character is 'Amruta Monohi'. The Mahamta of Radhakanta Matha was the marfatdar. In course of management of the affairs of math and properties under his marfatdarship; one Babaji Gour Govinda Das was engaged by him to look after the garden known as "Ai Tota" which is the land of an extent of Ac.6.00 and odd. It is further stated that during Car Festival huts are being constructed over the same to provide accommodation for the devotees and pilgrims. This Gour Govinda Das in course of time being in charge of looking after the properties, converted the suit land to kitchen garden and thereafter having constructed the hut over there began to reside. He then claimed the tenancy right over the suit properties. The plaintiff was then a Mohrir (Advocate's Clerk) and was looking after the affairs of Math. He was approached by the then Hereditary Trustees of the Math for necessary advise for eviction of said Gour Govinda Das and for necessary help. It was agreed that in that event, he would be rewarded being given with two acres of land. Finally aforesaid two acres of land was granted by way of lease and for the sake of evidence, there had come into existence an unregistered deed on 15.02.1970. The plaintiff also alternatively advances the claim of title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) ON such rival pleadings, trial court framed necessary issues and rendered the following findings: