GAURA NAIK Vs. ARJUN CHARAN DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant against a reversing decision. Daitari Dash, the original plaintiff, had filed Title Suit No. 23 of 1979 in the Court of the Munsif, Keonjhar, for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The disputed property has been described in Schedules A, A-1 and A-2 of the plaint.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, properties described in Schedules A, A-1 and A-2 were being enjoyed by Dukhia Naik, Suban Naik and Sikhar Naik respectively as Chandana Raiyats under Brahmin landlords of the village and were recorded as such in 1914 Settlement. Subsequently, however, Dukhia Naik and Suban Naik abandoned the lands and left the village, Ourgadeipur. The plaintiff, who claims to be one of the co-sharerlandlords, occupied Schedule A land and other portion measuring Ac. 0.04 decimals of land of Dukhia was given to Mangulu Naik and Sapana Naik, as they were the field servants. Similarly, the plaintiff occupied Schedules A-1 and A-2 lands for more than sixty years as of right and to the knowledge of all others including the defendant's family and the co-sharer Brahmins of the village. The plaintiff claims to have perfected possessory right. It is asserted that defendant was in no way related to Dukhia or Suban. During the current Major Settlement operation, it transpired that about Ac. 0.11 decimals of Suban's land under possession of defendant, whereas Schedule A-2 land measuring Ac. 0.04 decimals under possession of the plaintiff had been recorded in the name of defendant's grandfather Sikhar in the 1914 Settlement. It is asserted that as the lands were contiguous, either the Record-of-Rights of 1914 had been prepared erroneously, or there was an exchange between Sikhar and Suban. It is further asserted that taking advantage of the situation, defendant trespassed upon the disputed lands on 30-8-1979 and damaged some of the seedlings for which F.I.R. was lodged by the son of the plaintiff, but since no action was taken, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit.

(3.) ,. The defendant in his written statement while denying the plaint allegations claimed that he was related to Suban. It has been further claimed that the suit lands had been recorded in the names of Sikhar, Suban and Dukhia was possessing Schedule A land measuring Ac. 0.05 decimals which is now under the possession of Suban and Mangulu who have not been impleaded in the suit. The defendant as the grandson of Sikhar Naik is possessing his lands as well as the lands recorded in the name of Suban. On the death of Suban without leaving any issue, Sikhar being the brother of Suban possessed Schedule A-1 lands. It is asserted that the plaintiff has manipulated the Current Settlement records and the suit is liable to be dismissed, as he does not have any right over the disputed property.