NAYANA BHUYAN Vs. NARAYAN BHUYAN @ DALEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC-II), Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 132 of 2005 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaintiff. The suit having been dismissed, as unsuccessful plaintiff, Brahmananda had preferred the appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During pendency of the appeal, said Brahmananda having died, his legal representatives being substituted pursued the appeal, and they are now the appellants. So, the unsuccessful plaintiffs now challenge the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal confirming those of the trial 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 trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is one Kasinath Bhoi had two sons. Bramhananda, the original plaintiff is one whereas Paramananda is the other. It is stated that the during lifetime of the Kasinath, he gave away his younger son Paramananda in adoption to one Madhu Dalei of the said village and said adoption is said to have taken place prior to the year 1958. It is further stated that the adoption had taken place as per the rites and customs of the parties and after said adoption, Paramananda lived with adoptive father who brought him up, gave him education and got his marriage solemnized. Thus, it is stated that Paramananda was all along being treated and recognized in every quarter as the son Madhu Dalei. He has been shown as such in all the official records. A deed acknowledging the said adoption is said to have been executed by that Madhu Dalei on 05.08.1959. Further case of the plaintiff is that after Paramanda's adoption, he lost all his rights over the property of his natural father Kashinath and all his ties with the family of the natural father got completely severed. Subsequently, on 23.04.1984 Paramananda's son and widow have been recorded as tenants in respect of suit property along with the plaintiff. Thus it is stated that the said property having been owned by Kashinath and he having died, it ought to have been exclusively recorded in the name of the plaintiff, as Paramanda had no manner of right, title and interest over the same and so also his son, the defendant has nothing to do with it. It is stated that during consolidation operation, no such claim was advanced by the defendant. However, on 01.02.2003 for the first time without any rhyme and reason, he openly gave out that he would forcibly occupy the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant while traversing the written statement pleaded inter alia that Kashinath was the father of the plaintiff and Paramananda. Paramananda died about 20 years back leaving behind his widow and sons. Defendant is the one of the sons of Paramananda. He denied the plea taken by the plaintiff as regards adoption of Paramananda by Madhu Dalei prior to the year 1958. They also denied any such execution of document on 5.8.1963, acknowledging the adoption. Rather it is stated that no such deed had come into being at any time and even if such a document is seen, the same is in valid and had not at all been acted upon. Thus, it is stated that the suit land when belonged to Kashinath, on his death it has been rightly recorded in the name of all. It is also stated that Paramananda had never lost his right over the suit land. It has also been averred that the plaintiff had challenged that entry in the record of right by carrying an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation and that has been dismissed on 19.08.1981. So, as such the entries in the record of right prepared during consolidation operation is said to have attained its finality for all purpose and thus not liable to be called in question.