HARIA BHOI Vs. SHANTILATA PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiffs -respondents is that one Artabandhu Naik was the owner of the disputed plot No. 807 under Khata No. 35. The plaintiffs -respondents purchased the suit property under a registered sale -deed from the said Artabandhu Naik. After the sale -deed was executed, possession was delivered in favour of the plaintiffs -respondents. In the year 1963 the intermediary estate vested in the State Government under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. Plaintiffs -respondents being the owner in possession of the suit property, filed a claim vide O.E.A. Case No. 8140/1603 of 1963 -64. In the said proceeding the suit property was settled with the plaintiffs -respondents by the O.E.A. collector and fair rent was fixed. Since then the plaintiffs -respondents are paying rent to the Government. During the Hal settlement operation the property has already been recorded in their favour in the draft record -of -rights. Further case of the plaintiffs -respondents is that while in possession, the suit property was given on lease to one Shyam Bihari Prasad for a period of 4 years and 9 months on monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 80/ - under a registered lease deed dated 8.4.1968. The said lessee while in possession of the suit property constructed three rooms thereon. The period of lease expired in July, 1977 and the lessee vacated the premises. Thereafter the plaintiffs -respondents took possession of the land as well as the three rooms constructed by the lessee and kept the same under lock and key. Taking advantage of such situation the defendants -appellants forcibly broke open the lock and trespassed into the suit property on 30.7.1979. Though the plaintiffs -respondents asked the defendants -appellants to vacate the land as well as the rooms, they refused to do so on 1.9.1981 which has led to filing of the suit for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of possession. Defendants -appellants except defendant No. 2 filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation apart from merits. According to the defendants -appellants they are the legal heirs of one Bharat Bhoi which was in possession of the suit plot No. 807. It is also the case of the defendants -appellants that a portion of the suit plot had been given on rent to one Shyam Bihari Prasad on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. After the said Shyam Bihari Prasad vacated the land, the defendants came into possession thereof. It is the further case of the defendants -appellants that in order to grab the property, the plaintiffs -respondents have been filing cases and being unsuccessful have filed the present suit. It is also the case of the defendants -appellants that the defendant No. 1 has filed OS. No. 23/1970 -1 against the plaintiffs which has given rise to filing of Second Appeal No. 257 of 2000. The aforesaid Second Appeal which is connected to this appeal shall be dealt with separately.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court found that the plaintiffs -respondents acquired fresh title because of settlement of fair and equitable rent in claim case. It further found that the genealogy given in the written statement by the defendants -appellants has not been proved and in absence of heirs of Bharat the suit property vested and the same having been settled in favour of the plaintiffs -respondents, possession of the plaintiffs -respondents over the suit property is substantially proved by the oral and documentary evidence. On the above findings, the appeal was dismissed.