SAKHI BHUYAN AND ORS. Vs. BANSIDHAR MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL representatives of the Defendant No. 1 are the Appellants against a confirming judgment in their second appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for title and possession. Both the Courts have found the disputed land to have been sold by the original owner to the Plaintiff. Case of the Defendant No. 1 was that the Plaintiff played a fraud on him and took the sale deed in his own name which was actually to be executed in the name of the Defendant No. 1 and on that basis claimed that having continued in possession of the disputed land for more than the statutory period he had acquired title by adverse possession for which the suit was liable to be dismissed. Both the contentions of the Defendant No. 1 not having been accepted by the Courts below this second appeal has been filed by his legal representatives. Normally, the findings are findings of fact. However, on account of non -consideration of three documents by the appellate Court, this Court admitted the appeal framing the substantial question of law which reads as follows:

(3.) IT is the case of the Defendant that it was decided that the vendor would sell the portions of land to the persons in possession. Accordingly, a list of the purchasers was prepared. The list has not been filed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is contended that adverse inference should be drawn. The adverse inference even if would be drawn would indicate that the Defendant No. 1 was in possession and agreed to transfer the land in dispute to the Defendant No. 1. If Defendant No. 1 would have filed the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale against the vendor the question would have been different. Once Defendant No. 1 having agreed to purchase the disputed land admitted the title of the, vendor, the long possession would only be treated to be permissive in nature and no finding of adverse possession can be given in favour of the Defendant No. 1. Therefore, the adverse inference even if drawn would be of no assistance to the Appellants. The judgment of the appellate Court is therefore, not vitiated on that account.