BHRAMARBAR PRADHAN Vs. KAMALA BEWA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the adopted son of Purandar Pradhan and defendant no.1. Purandar Pradhan was the Gountia of village Purunagarh. After death of his father, he inherited Gountiship as well as the land attached to the said Gountiship. He made an application for mutation of the land. The same was allowed and the land was mutated in his name. But then his mother, defendant no.1 preferred mutation appeal. The same was dismissed. Notwithstanding dismissal of the mutation appeal, land in question had been settled with defendant no.1 in the Bhogra conversion proceeding. No notice was served on him. The order of settlement was invalid and inoperative since defendant no.1 was not the Gountia of the village and, as such, land could not be settled in her favour. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 filed Title Suit No.2 of 1973 claiming exclusive right, title and interest in respect of the entire properties on the basis of the settlement in her favour and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not her adopted son, in the alternative for partition of the properties. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Purandar Pradhan and defendant no.1. But the defendant no.1 got the title of the property on the basis of the settlement made in her favour in the Bhogra conversion proceeding. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.32/80 before the Subordinate Judge, Deogarh. In the said appeal, a compromise was entered into between the parties wherein the defendant no.1 admitted the exclusive right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and abandoned her claim for partition. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. Notwithstanding the said compromise, defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant no. Defendant no.2 wanted to disturb his possession. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed with the relief stated supra.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered contest and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was stated that Purandar was the Gountia. After him, defendant no.1 being the sole surviving member enjoyed the Gountiship throughout. They did not know about the so-called mutation in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants did not deny the adoption of the plaintiff. According to them, the plaintiff did not acquire the property attached to the Gountiship. The land in question had been settled with defendant no.1 in Bhogra conversion proceeding in Settlement Case No.45/67. Thus defendant no.1 had acquired indefeasible right and saleable interest to part on in favour of defendant no.2. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule land.