HARISHANKARLAL @ HARISANKAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh in RFA No. 11 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kantabanji in T.S. No. 29 of 2007. The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land. The same having been dismissed, he had carried an appeal and as no such fruitful result yielded there in his favour, he has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the suit land was originally in possession of one Swain Ram Jain who had constructed rooms and was running his business there. He sold the suit land with constructed rooms to one Muralilal Agarwal. Subsequently, in the year 1974, Muralilal is said to have sold the same to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff claims to be in peaceful possession of the suit land by reconstructing the house standing over it since his purchase. His case is that he has been residing there with his family members. It is his further case that he is also in possession over of the land under plot No. 340 which adjoins the suit land under plot Nos. 345 and 346. It is stated that in the year 1975, the plaintiff applied before the concerned authority for recording the land in his name. However, though the land was recorded in his name yet his possession was noted in the remark column of the Record of Right against the suit plots by deletion of the name of the erstwhile occupant, namely, Swain Ram Jain. The plaintiff claims to have paid the holding tax to the N.A.C. for the constructed rooms situated over the suit land. On 09.11.2006 when plaintiff was constructing the house over the land, it is alleged that the Revenue Inspector restrained him on the ground that it was being done unauthorisedly on the land belonging to the State, the defendant. So, the plaintiff applied before the Tahasildar to settle the land in his favour. His prayer however has been turned down. The plaintiff claims to be in open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since the year 1974 to the knowledge of the State. According to his case, the open possession of the suit land is with hostile animus and adverse to the interest of the defendant. Thus, he claims to have perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse possession prior to the institution of the suit.