STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SAHUKAR GURUMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the Defendants is directed against the Judgment of Learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore passed in T.A. No. 29 of 1990 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Jeypore in T.S. No. 221 of 1986.

(2.) THE Respondent as Plaintiff brought the suit to declare him as the owner of the suit land and to restrain the Defendants from interfering with his session and in the alternative to recover possession of the suit property, if found is possessed in the meantime by the Tahsildar in the OPLE proceeding. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 126 and 127 in Khata No. 74 of Mouza - Neelakantheswarpur with other lands recorded as hal plot Nos. 1042 and 1043 of Khata Nos. 75 and 76 belonged to one Shyam Ghadai who sold those lands to one Ballaba Ghadai vide registered sale deeds dated 08.08.1943 and 03.11.1943. Ballaba Ghadai possessed those lands till 1951 when he sold the same to Champa Deherani, the guardian of Trinath Behera under registered sale deed No. 959 dated 27.5.1951. Trinath Behera possessed the said land for two years and sold it to Suryanarayana vide registered sale deed No. 5911 dated 15.04.1953. Suryanarayana sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by registered sale deed No. 434 dated 21.02.1966. The Plaintiff thereafter possessed that land continuously. The Survey and Settlement operation took place in the year 1950 and 1952, wherein the above said lands were given four plot numbers, such as, 126, 127. 1042 and 1043. Plot Nos. 1042 and 1043 of Khata Nos. 75 and 76 were recorded in the name of the Plaintiff whereas plot Nos. 126 and 127 of Khata No. 74 were recorded in favour of the Government of Orissa under a misnomer. Although the boundaries of the land noted in the sale deeds covered all the four plots yet, basing on the entry in the Record of Right, Tahasildar, Jeypore initiated OPLE Case No. 103/70 for eviction of the Plaintiff from plot Nos. 126 and 127 and passed an order of eviction. The Plaintiff preferred appeal vide OPLE Appeal No. 2/79 but the order of eviction was confirmed.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Court framed nine issues. The parties led oral and documentary evidence. On consideration of those evidence, Learned Trial Court held that plot Nos. 126 and 127 formed part of the lands purchased by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff and his predecessors -in -interest were in possession of these lands and the Plaintiff has derived title over the same; that the suit is not barred by limitation and is not hit by Section 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act. With these findings Learned Trial Court decreed the suit. The Defendants carried appeal, but the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed in that appeal and therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.