RAGHUNATH DASH Vs. UMAKANTA DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants against an affirming judgment.

(2.) Raghunath Dash, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, instituted O.S. No. 176 of 1982-I in the court of the learned Munsif, Bhadrak for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession, declaration that M.S. R.O.R. is wrong and permanent injunction impleading the respondents as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that one Madhusudan Dash was the common ancestor of the parties. He died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Baidyanath, Biswanath, Udaynath and Raghunath (original plaintiff). The defendants are the sons and daughters of Udaynath. Sabak settlement plot No. 265, area Ac.1.24 dec. and plot No. 266, area Ac.0.07 dec. originally belonged to one Braja Kumar Padhi. He gifted the same to the plaintiff-Raghunath, Baidyanath and Udaynath. In the year 1948, there was a partition in the family. Ac.0.60 dec. of land out of plot Nos. 265 and 266 was allotted to the plaintiff. An area of Ac.0.71 dec. of land out of plot No. 265 was allotted to Udaynath. Both parties were in possession of their respective lands. However, in major settlement, the land allotted to the plaintiff was reduced to Ac.0.56 dec., whereas Ac.0.77 dec. had been recorded in the name of the defendants. Thus the dispute between the parties pertains to the area Ac.0.06' dec. of land.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed written statement, admitted the factum of gift under Ext.A. They pleaded that the three brothers Baidyanath, Udaynath and Raghunath had title over the property. Biswanath had no share. There was no partition by metes and bounds. They are in possession of land according to their convenience. In major settlement operations, both the parties filed a joint petition to record their lands separately according to their possession. After enquiry, the ROR was published as per the possession of the parties. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff died, whereafter the legal heirs have been substituted. During pendency of the second appeal, the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 3 died, where after their legal representatives have been brought on record.