SMT. KAMALINI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bolangir in Title Appeal No.14 of 2002 dismissing her appeal under section 96 of the Code. The appellant as the plaintiff has filed the suit, i.e., Title Suit No.53 of 2000 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bolangir for declaration of her right, title, interest and confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of possession and permanent injunction insofar as the suit land is concerned. Her suit having been dismissed, she had filed the first appeal as aforesaid, which has also met the same fate. So, in this appeal while praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the plaintiff is praying for passing a decree in her suit granting her the reliefs as prayed for.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Abhaya Prasad Patnaik, who was in possession of the same. It is stated that on 20.12.1962, said Abhaya Prasad Patnaik sold the land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 85/- and delivered its possession. The transaction is said to have been evidenced by execution of a deed of sale by Abhaya Prasad Patnaik on a stamp paper. The plaintiff claims to have been in possession of the suit land since 20.12.1962. It is stated that the suit land described in schedule 'B' of the plaint as per the description contained in the record of the current settlement corresponds to the land as described in schedule 'A' of the plaint in accordance with the record of the settlement of the year 1936. It is stated that the plaintiff while in possession of the suit land sometime in the month of January, 2000 while was getting the land demarcated came to know that in the current settlement, it was recorded in the Rakhit Khata in the name of the State. In view of such recording ignoring the "Sthitiban Status" of the land as also the plaintiff's claim going to caste cloud upon the right of the plaintiff, she filed the suit after issuance of the notice under section 80 of the Code notice as mandated in law which did arouse any response.