NARAYAN PUROHIT AND ORS. Vs. JAGDISH PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Defendants is against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Boudh passed in title Appeal No. l of 1984. The Plaintiff's suit was one for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and/or recovery of possession and for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from entering upon the cultivable land as described in the schedule of the plaint.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs case may be briefly stated:

(3.) LEARNED Munsif considering the evidence led by the parties decided all the issues against the Plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge on review of the evidence came to hold that the Plaintiff being the nearest heir of Brajeswari, the admitted owner, has title to the suit property. As regards Defendant No. 1's claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession, the appellate Court negatived the same since no acceptable evidence was led in support thereof as required under law. So far claim of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the suit homestead land is concerned the learned Subordinate Judge held that they utterly failed to prove that it had been purchased by their father from Brajeswari. The Court further held that though they are admittedly in possession of the said land, but their such possession being permissive from the very inception, they cannot be said to have prescribed title without there being any evidence as to when they started possessing with hostile animus to the knowledge of the true owner. Consequently, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal.