BRUNDABAN SAHOO Vs. BIPIN BEHARI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.3/3 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No.442 of 1999.

(2.) THE present appellant, as plaintiff, filed the above noted suit for declaration of his right, title over the suit property and permanent injunction against -defendants -respondents. The pleading, in essence, was that the mother of the plaintiff had purchased a piece of land appertaining to Plot No.3550/3900 in Khata No.250 of mouza Raja Rani (Schedule 'C land) under registered sale deed No.6299 of 13.7.1964. While giving delivery of possession of that land, the vendor, Hemalata Devi also gave possession of a piece of adjoining land (Schedule 'A land), which she had amalgamated with her land and accordingly, the mother of the plaintiff remained in possession of both the Schedule 'A and 'C lands constructing a residential house, compound wall, cow shed etc. over it. She continued her possession over these lands till her death, whereafter the plaintiff possessed the same and in the process perfected title over the schedule 'A land by virtue of adverse possession. The plaintiff alleged that on 12.7.1999 the present respondent No.1 came over the suit schedule 'A land and threatened to dispossess him therefrom on the plea that the same has been leased out to him by the Government under lease deed No. 2748 dated 12.5.1999. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues and then taking the evidence led by the parties into consideration, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit land by adverse possession and that the defendant No.1 got possession over suit schedule 'A land by way of lease from the State Government and that he is in possession of the same constructing a compound wall around it. Learned trial Court, therefore, observed that the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of his right, title over the suit land or injunction against the defendant No.1. With those findings, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff carried appeal, but the learned first appellate Court concurred the findings of the learned trial Court and hence, the present appeal.