PRAMILA BEHERA Vs. RAMA BOSE (DEAD) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in these appeals calls in question the judgments followed by decrees passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in R.F.A. Nos.130 of 2006, 131 of 2006 and 132 of 2006 arising out of Civil Suit No.261 of 2002 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri. This appellant as the plaintiff had filed the above suit for declaration of her title over the suit schedule land and permanent injunction restraining the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 who were the defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit from interfering with her possession over the same. The respondent no.1 had filed a counter claim seeking declaration of her title over a portion of the suit schedule property. Defendant nos.4 to 9 having impleaded themselves as parties had also filed counter claim staking their title over the rest of the suit property. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claims. So, this appellant as the unsuccessful plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed three above noted first appeals under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the learned District Judge, Puri. All the three appeals having been dismissed, the said unsuccessful plaintiff as the appellant has thus filed these three second appeals under section 100 of the Code.

(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 the suit schedule property measuring Ac.0.50 dec. appertaining to Sabik Plot No.800 in part under Khata No.70 of Mauza -Balukhanda corresponding to Hal Plot No.802 under Khata No.218 of Mauza -Talabania in the town of Puri along with other property originally belonged to one Susilabala Dasi w/o Ramakanta Bose and one Nityananda Bose being recorded as Nijchas intheir name in the record of right of the year 1927 -28. The property finally vested with the State free from all encumbrances when the Orissa Estate Abolition Act came into force. Subsequently, the same stood settled in their name in OEA Claim Case No.2/1956 -57. It is stated that Susilabala Dasi and Nityananda thereafter partitioned those properties and in the said partition, the land under Plot No.800 appertaining to Khata No.70 (Sabik) measuring an area of Ac.8.43 dec. of which the suit land is a part fell to the share of Susilabala Dasi. She then alienated different portions of land from out of it to different persons by executing 101 sale deeds. The land sold thereby came to Ac.8.11 dec. One Namita Chaterjee was one of such vendors. She had purchased the suit land measuring Ac.0.50 dec. by registered sale deed dated 29.07.1963 (Ext.2). Being delivered with the possession of the suit land, she possessed the same till she transferred it to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 30.04.1999 (Ext.3). Said Namita had taken the step to get the land recorded in her name during the settlement operation and had fought the litigation with the revenue authorities for the said purpose. Finally, the draft record of right had been so prepared in her name. The said suit land stands recorded as a separate plot bearing no.802 under Khata No.281. The plaintiff claims to have developed the said land and as such to be in possession of the same. It is alleged that the defendant no.1 has raised a false claim that out of the said property she had purchased Ac.0.08 1/2 dec. from the legal heirs of Nityananda, namely, Raghebendra Bose -defendant no.7 and Renabendra Bose -defendant no.8 by registered sale deed dated 02.11.1988 and another piece of equal extent of land from Radhakanta Bose s/o Susilabala Dasi by registered sale deed dated 02.11.1988. The plaintiff attacks these transaction to be bogus and as such to have conveyed no title in respect of the land to the defendant no.1 in respect of the properties described in those sale deeds. With the allegation that defendant no.1 with her husband -defendant no.2 tried to dispossess her on the strength of those invalid sale deeds, the suit has come to be filed.