SASADEVA @ SASHADEV PANDA & OTHERS Vs. LINGARAJ PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska (as it was then) in Title Suit No. 32 of 1977. The original respondent no.1 as the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of possession of the property described under Item Nos. A and B of the schedule appended to the plaint by evicting the defendant nos. 1 to 5 who are the appellants in the present appeal followed by grant of mesne profit.

(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.) The plaintiff's case is that one Pindika had two sons namely Tarini and Raghunath. Ganesh and the plaintiff are the two sons of Raghunath. The branch of Ganesh is represented by the defendant nos. 6 and 7 who are now the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Tarini, the other son of Raghunath is said to have gone after marriage to the village of his fatherin-law as his wife, namely, Khalli got the suit property from her mother, Chinamali. Said Chinamali had also executed one deed of gift in favour of Khalli on 19.11.1916. Thus, Khalli and Tarini possessed the land in question. They had one son namely, Trilochana who is said to have been adopted by Chinamali. Khalli died in the year 1954 and the death of Tarini took place in the year 1967. It is stated that in the year 1954, defendant no.2 came to pose himself as the adopted son of Tarini and accordingly attempted to alienate some properties. So, the Suit bearing No. 67 of 1958 was instituted. In that suit Tarini claimed to have adopted Seshadev, the defendant no.1 who is the son of Trilochan and asserted his status that as that of his son. The suit however did not succeed and finding was recorded that Seshadev was not adopted by Tarini. The appeal being filed by Tarini went in vain. Upon death of Tarini, the plaintiff tried to get back the property as the successor of Tarini along with defendant nos. 6 and 7. But he did not succeed in his attempt. As these defendants 1 to 5 were in forcibly possession of the property, the present suit has been filed for the reliefs of recovery of possession claiming that the plaintiff along with defendant nos. 6 and 7 are entitled to possess the suit land.