MURALIDHARA NAYAK Vs. MADHEI PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) Nakula Prusty, predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 6 and respondent no.7 as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.1 of 1991 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakhyanagar for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Government have settled sabik plot nos.8/897 and 8/899, Khata no.2 of Touzi No.1 measuring area Ac.5.66 dec. of Mouza-Bhairpur in favour of their father Purna Chandra Prusty. He was in possession of the same and paid rent to the State. The State Government also settled an area Ac.1.30 dec. appertaining to Plot no.18/998, Khata no.2 of mouza-Bhairpur in favour of their father. During the current settlement operation, some portions of lands of sabik plot no.8/897 were recorded as plot Nos.695, 740 and 816 under Hal Khata No.146 of Mouza-Bhairpur. Similarly some portions of lands of Sabik plot no.18/898 were recorded as Hal plot Nos.826 and 951 under Khata No.146 of Mouza-Bhairpur. Though the suit lands were recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the finally published ROR, the name of the defendants had been reflected in the remarks column. The recording of the note of possession of the defendants in the remarks column of the suit plots is wrong and without any foundation. Being emboldened with the wrong entry, the defendants had tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit lands. Be it noted that during pendency of the appeal in the courts below, the plaintiff no.1 died; where after his legal heirs, present respondent Nos.1 to 6, were substituted.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the suit is barred by law of limitation. While not disputing the settlement of the suit lands in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, they denied the correctness of the Hal suit plots to the Sabik plots. The specific case of the defendants is that Juanganali chaka of Mouza-Bhairpur Raita was previously a jungle land and out of that the father of the defendants reclaimed Sabik plot no.18/1033 area Ac.0.70 decimals, Sabik plot no.18/1024 area Ac.0.94 decimals, sabik plot no.8/1079 area Ac.1.10 decimals prior to 1950. The defendant no.1 got sabik plot no.18/1048 area Ac.0.20 decimals and Sabik plot no.18/1049 by lease at about the same period. Later the father of the defendants purchased Ac.0.81 decimals and 2/1/2 Kadis of lands from the western side of Sabik plot no.8/897 from Nakula Prusty, plaintiff no.1, by registered sale deed on 23.11.54. Thereafter the land was mutated in the name of the father of the defendants and was assigned plot no.8/897/1125. It is further stated that the father of the defendants cleared the jungle in the year 1950 and changed the Kisam of the land in the year 1960. Since then the father of the defendants and thereafter the defendants are in possession of the suit lands along with other surrounding lands of Juanganali chaka. The plaintiffs have never possessed the suit lands since the year 1950. The suit lands lost their identity at the spot being merged with the lands of the defendants. In the alternative it is pleaded that the defendants have acquired their title over the same by adverse possession.