MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. BHABAGRAHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for title and possession and damages in respect of 239 decimals out of plot No. 74 consisting of an area of 330 decimals. The land is situated in revenue village Sanjobra within Cuttack town and is in Khata No. 92 of the current settlement of the year 1931.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that in 1968 it came to its notice that defendant 1 has constructed a building over the suit plot in which plaintiff was depositing materials for maintenance of the road when needed. Before any action was taken, defendant 1 issued a notice not to disturb in his possession. Case of the defendant 1 is that the land is recorded as waste land which was in actual possession of the intermediary of Touzi No. 2500. The intermediary was permitting persons to use it as timber yard since 1927. In the year 1940 the intermediaries permitted him to use it as timber yard on receipt of premium. In 1950 defendant 1 took it on temporary lease by a registered document and in 1953 a permanent lease deed was executed to that effect. The intermediaries filed ekpadia in respect of the land in name of the defendant 1 on vesting of the estate and State of Orissa has recognised the title of the plaintiff, has entered his name in the tenants' ledger and has collected rent from him. Plaintiff has also permitted the defendant 1 to construct house and has assessed and collected holding tax in respect of the building. Defendant 1 also claims to have adverse possession on account of his long possession.

(3.) Both the parties essentially depend on their respective title to the disputed property. The suit being one for possession based on title, Art.65 of the Limitation Act is attracted whereunder the period of limitation for the suit would be twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to the plaintiff. Therefore, two questions require examination in this case. They are :