DILESWAR BEHERA Vs. BENUDHAR PALEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned' Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1994, reversing the Judgment and decree of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar recorded in T.S. No. 4 of 1988.

(2.) THE Present Respondents as Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration their right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession of that land, if they are found dispossessed in the meantime and for issuance of permanent injunction against the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. The case of the Plaintiffs was that their grand -father -Butu Behera. purchased the suit land from the father of the Defendants in the year 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 100/ - took delivery of possession of that land and continued possession over the suit land where after his son Harihar Palei possessed the same and after the death of Harihar, they are in possession of the suit land. The Plaintiffs further pleaded that nine to ten years before the institution of the suit their residential house over the suit land was gutted with fire and they shifted to another residence. Taking advantage of the situation, the Defendants created disturbance over the suit land and tried to take over possession for which there was a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Vide CMC No. 196 of 1987 before the Executive Magistrate. Since that proceeding terminated in favour of the Defendants, they filed the suit seeking the aforementioned relief. The Plaintiffs also pleaded that if at all the sale is found illegal or invalid, by virtue of their peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land they have acquired title by adverse possession.

(3.) THOUGH , at the time of admission, the grounds noted in paragraph -2, (c) (d) and (f) of the appeal memo were accepted as substantial questions of law for consideration, it appears that the only substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal is - "whether the amended period of limitation contemplated in Section 23 -B of the OLR Act and Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present case -