TRINATH SAHOO Vs. HRUDANANDA SAHOO & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2006 and 14.8.2006 respectively passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Kamakhyanagar in Title Appeal No.6/30 of 2002/2003 whereby and whereunder the learned lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2001 and 7.1.2002 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar in Title Suit No.29 of 1998.

(2.) Appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-A land, removal of the hut constructed by the defendants over Schedule-B land, easementary right over Schedule-C land and permanent injunction impleading the respondents as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that Raghu Sahoo, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, is the agnatic brother of Manu Sahoo, father of defendant nos.1 and 2. The suit land appertaining to Hal Plot Nos.3252 and 3265 of Hal Khata No.673 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.2089 of Sabik Khata No.299 stood recorded in the name of Manu in the record-of-right. The adjacent Sabik Plot Nos.2038 and 2085 of Sabik Khata No.249 stood recorded in the name of Raghu. Though Sabik Plot No.2089 stood recorded in the name of Manu, house of Manu and Raghu exist over the said plot. The house of Manu, which is in the occupation of defendants 1 and 2, exists on the north-western side, whereas the house of Raghu is situated in the southern side being intervened by a narrow road. During current settlement operation, the suit lands were recorded in the name of defendants 1 and 2 under Hal Khata No.673 of MouzaKumusi with the forcible note of possession of the plaintiff in the remarks column against Plot No.3252. Raghu sold Ac.0.01 decimals and 4½ kadies of land out of Ac.0.02 decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.2085 of Sabik Khata No.249 of Mouza-Kumusi to one Bhaji Behera by means of registered sale deed dated 12.2.1963 and delivered possession of the same. But then, the plot number was wrongly described in the sale deed. It is further stated that his natural parents, Panchu and Jema were also staying with him in the house situated over Plot No.3252. Jema is the daughter of Raghu.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The assertion of the plaintiff as adopted son of Raghu has been denied. They further denied the existence of house of Raghu over sabik plot No.2089 corresponding to Hal Plot No.3252 and possession of Raghu and thereafter the plaintiff over the same. The specific case of the defendants is that the note of possession of the plaintiff in the remarks columns of the record-of-rights of sabik plot No.3252 is wrong and manipulated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession does not arise. Further case of the defendants is that Raghu stayed in his house situated over Sabik Plot No.3264, which is adjacent to the suit land. There is no existence of path over the suit schedule land.