DURYODHAN DAS Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1980 (93 of 1987).

(2.) THE original appellant, Duryodhan Das, the plaintiff filed T.S.No. 94 of 1975 in the Court of Munsif, Jajpur praying for a decree of injunction restraining the defendants (who are the present respondents) from entering into the suit land and disturbing his possession. The case of the plaintiff in essence was that one Kartika Das had three sons, namely, Indra, Mandara and Sundara and these sons inherited the properties of Kartika. Mandara separated himself from other two brothers and got his five annas and four paise share, while the other two brothers remained joint. Sundara died in such state of jointness without leaving any male heir. Sabi, the widow of Sundara also executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff as the sole surviving heir inherited the entire ten annas and eight paise share of Sundara and Indra and remained in possession of the same. Suryamani, the son of Mandara, being the elder -member was looking after the settlement operation and he got the suit lands recorded in his name fraudulently. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 119/1943 in the Court of Munsif, Jajpur for declaring his right title over the suit land and for setting aside the entry in the R.O.R. The suit ended in compromise and the right of Suryamani over plot No. 2130 and part of plot No. 2131 and the right title of plaintiff over plot No. 2132 and the remaining part 2131 was acknowledged. In the said decree recording of Suryamani's name in respect of the suit holding in the R.O.R. was held to be erroneous and plaintiff's absolute right, title and possession over the suit properties were declared. When the matter stood thus, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 claiming to have purchased the share of late Sundara from Hara, the daughter of Sundara (defendant No. 4) threatened the plaintiff with dispossession from the suit land, as a result there were some criminal proceedings between the parties. With no result coming from such proceedings, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -respondents.

(3.) WHILE admitting this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were accepted for consideration: