BANAMBAR SAHOO Vs. PANU DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 4 of 1983-I in the court of the learned Munsif, Banpur for eviction of the defendants from the suit land, recovery of possession, mandatory and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner in possession of the suit land. The suit land situates towards backside of his residential house. The same is intervened by the "Simabandha". There are trees standing over the same. On 25.2.1983, the defendants dug foundation for construction of a latrine over a portion of the suit land. The plaintiff objected. The defendants wanted to get the land measured in their presence. The plaintiff applied for demarcation of the suit land to the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar deputed the R.I., Banpur to measure the land. But then the defendants did not cooperate with the measurement. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit plot no. 69. Though the suit plot has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff, he is not in possession of the same since long. The suit plot situates on the side of river Salia. There exists "Simabandha", which is a Government land to protect the houses of the people of Banpur town from the excess rain waters flowing through that river. In the west of the plaintiff's house, there is a passage. The same is used by the people to go to the river. Their mother Puni Bewa had purchased sabik plot no. 91, 92 and 99, which corresponds to hal plot nos.64 and 70. She purchased the land on 29.7.1942 and 19.7.1951 respectively. Their residential house situates over hal plot no. 64 and Plot no. 70. The suit plot no. 69 is adjacent to plot nos.64 and 70. Their further case is that they are in possession of hal plot no. 70 as well as 69 since the date of purchase. They reclaimed plot no. 69 and plot no. 70 and raised vegetables. The plaintiff never objected the possession of the defendants over the suit plot. Thus, the defendants being in possession of the suit plot for about 40 years, they acquired title to it by way of adverse possession.