SMT. BINAPANI NAYAK Vs. PRUTHIRAJ PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in Title Appeal No. 27 of 1996 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhenkanal in Title Suit No. 77 of 1995. The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition of the land described in Schedule ­A (comprising of lot 1 and lot 2) as also the Schedule -B of the plaint. The trial court decreed the suit preliminarily in part for partition allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff over Schedule ­A lot ­ 1 property in favour of the plaintiff and 1/3rd share each to respondent no. 2 and 3 (defendant no. 1 and 2), while declining the partition the properties described in lot ­ 2 of Schedule ­A and Schedule ­B holding the plaintiffs -appellant to be having no right to claim partition of land under lot 2 of Schedule ­A and that the Schedule ­B land as not liable to be partitioned amongst the parties. The unsuccessful plaintiff (appellant) being aggrieved by such refusal of the relief as prayed for in respect of the Schedule ­A, lot -2 land as also Schedule ­B having carried an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has failed to get the trial court's decree enlarged to any extent. So she has now approached this Court with the second 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 trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the properties described in Schedule ­A under two lots i.e., lot ­ 1 which are the landed properties of village Kankadahada and lot ­ 2 which is homestead land in the town of Dhenkanal belong to her father and the land described under schedule B as the land belonging to the State adjoining the homestead land described in lot 2 which has remained in possession since the time of her father Kampal Parida. Accordingly, it is stated that Kampal had acquired right, title and interest over said schedule B land by adverse possession by virtue of his open, peaceful and continuous possession for much more than the period prescribed. She filed the suit claiming 1/3rd share over the above properties.