SURIL AND ORS. Vs. LAXMAN MAJHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Baripada in R.F.A. No. 34/69 of 2007 -04 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karanjia in Title Suit No. 8 of 2002 in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents as the plaintiffs in part in respect of schedule 'B' land and holding their entitlement for recovery of possession of schedule 'D' lands except the land under plot Nos. 75 and 65/250.

(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 case of the plaintiffs is that one Jatia is the common ancestor of the defendants and he had land measuring Ac. 5.56 dec. in village -Guliajudi including the suit land under Khata No. 3. Their further case is that on 27.10.1931, Jatia had sold the land described in schedule 'B' of the plaint to Pitha Majhi and Karu Majhi the two sons of Laxman Majhi who are the predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 38/ - by an unregistered sale deed coupled with delivery of possession. It is stated that since the date of the said purchase, Pitha and Karu remained in possession of the land and they had also later on partitioned between them and possessed respective shares separately which came to the hands of their successors accordingly. It is further stated that after the death of two sons of Jatia, their sons had partitioned their properties and remained in separate possession. While continuing as such, one San -Ananta son of Chhutai who happens to be the son of Jatia had sold schedule 'C land to Laxman, the plaintiff No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 17.05.1974 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/ - and had delivered of possession and since then the plaintiffs have been in possession of the said land. It is alleged that on 18.11.1991, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 forcibly cut away the paddy crops from the land described in schedule 'D -1'. So, there was initiation of a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr.P.C. vide C.M.C. No. 31 of 1991. The properties were attached and by the order in the said proceeding, the plaintiff No. 1 has been found to have been illegally dispossessed. Accordingly, the order of restoration of possession had been passed. The said order was challenged in criminal revision. During pendency of the said revision, as the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 created further disturbance over schedule 'D' lands, the plaintiff No. 1 had filed another proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. wherein the parties were directed to seek redress in the proper court of law. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over schedule 'B' land on the basis of purchase of the same by their predecessors -in -interest, namely, Pitha Majhi and Karu Majhi on 27.01.1931 from the common ancestor of the defendants, namely, Jatia Majhi as also for declaration of their right, title and interest over 'C schedule land on the basis of purchase being made by the plaintiff No. 1 from San -Ananta s/o. Chhutai Majhi by registered sale deed dated 17.05.1974. Prayer for recovery of possession in respect of schedule 'D -1' and 'D -2' of the land has also been made.