NARASINGHA ROU Vs. SRICHARAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession Title is based on a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) dated 11 -4 -1956 for a consideration of Rs. 1400 executed by defendant -2 on behalf of himself and his sons and defendant -1, the mother -in -law of defendant -2. Plaintiff's case is that from the date of purchase he was in possession. In 1957 defendant -3 started a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. which ended in his favour.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff. Defendant -3 claimed the disputed land as his ancestral property and asserted that he and his ancestors are in possession for the last 20 years or so and that defendants 1 and 2 had no title or possession. It was further averred that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years of the suit and in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. between him and defendants 1 and 2, the land was delivered to him in 1952, and that no suit having been filed within three years of the final order, this suit is barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) IT is crystal clear from the evidence, both documentary and oral, on either side that the plaintiff has not acquired any title in the suit by virtue of his sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 who himself had no title and possession in it and defendant No. 3 is in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. He however, held that the suit was not barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.