STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KANEHYALAL JHUNJHUNWALLA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Bolangir in Title Suit No. 55 of 1968. The Suit is one for recovery of possession in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedules 1 -A, 1 -B and 1 -C of the plaint after demolition of all structures standing thereon or in the alternative for recovery of compensation. amounting to Rs. 1,18,950/ - together with damages amounting to Rs. 15,000/ - and interest thereon from the Defendant.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiffs in short, may be stated as follows:

(3.) ORIGINALLY plaint I -C schedule land was described to be appertaining to village Titilagarh which was amended at the instance of the Plaintiffs to be appertaining to village Sirvata. After the amendment of the plaint as stated above, on 19 -10 -1974 the Defendant filed its additional written statement on 28 -11 -1974 further contending that the Plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit lands and they had no right, 'title or possession over the same. It was further stated that Plaintiff No. 1 had not acquired any right or title to the suit lands by virtue of the agreement dated 8 -6 -1958 entered between Bolangir Trading Company and the Plaintiff No. 1. Besides it was alleged that the Plaintiff No. 1 had received the amount due to him from Bolangir Trading Company from out of the compensation awarded in Misc. Case Nos. 9/60 and 10/61 of 1963 of the said Court. The plaint was amended for the second time after close of heating of the suit. In the said amendment the original prayer declaration of Plaintiffs' title over the plaint schedule lands stood deleted. The Defendant filed another additional written statement taking the plea that the suit as framed was not maintainable and the prayer for recovery of possession cannot be granted in the absence of the prayer for declaration of title. It was further alleged that the suit properties are Nazul lands situated within the Notified Area Council of Titibgarh of which the State is the owner according to the provisions of Rule 1 of the Nazul Rules and consequently the Plaintiffs have no right to evict the Defendant from the suit lands.