BULI JENA AND OTHERS Vs. BISHNU CHARAN SUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants against a reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and in alternative recovery of possession, declaration that the entry in the M.S.R.O.R. as well as the order passed in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 are wrong and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the suit land originally belonged to Krushna Chandra Mishra. The settlement record of right was published in the year 1930 in his name. After his death, his widow, Smt. Dibya was in possession of the land. She used to pay rent. She died in the year 1965 leaving behind her daughter's son, Pranakrushna Nanda, as her sole heir. The suit land was 'Brahmator Bahal'. Pranakrushna filed R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976. The same was allowed in his favour in the year 1978. He was in possession of the land. To press his legal necessity, he alienated the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.1.1982 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The defendants had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land. They obtained an order in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977. No notice was issued to him. The order is infraction of principle of natural justice.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to Krushna Chandra Mishra. The suit land was let out on bhag basis in favour of their father, who possessed the suit land as bhag tenant continuously for more than 45 years. Krushna Chandra Mishra died leaving his widow as the only heir, who did not want any rajbhag from their father. After death of their father, they are in possession of the same. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor was in possession of the suit land. Their names were recorded in the major settlement R.O.R. The order passed in R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976 is illegal. The O.E.A. Collector vide order dated 22.6.1976 in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 acknowledged the defendants to be tenants and allowed them to continue as temporary lessees. Further plea of the defendants is that Pranakrushna is not the legal heir of Krushna Chandra Mishra. The plaintiff fraudulently obtained a registered sale deed from Pranakrushna. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land.