ALEKHA PRADHAN Vs. CHANCHALA SWAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant had filed T.S. No. 113/213 of 1990/1987 -1 in the court of the then Addl. Munsif, Puri inter alia praying for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the disputed property in any manner. As per the plaint averments, the property in dispute was the 'Niz Dakhal' property of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee, pro forma Defendant No. 11 and was a part of an estate ('SATEISI HAZARI') of the said Defendant. In the year 1965, the Plaintiff claimed to have reclaimed the land with tacit knowledge and consent of pro forma Defendant No. 11 and possessed the same as a raiyat. Defendant No. ll never took any step to evict him there from and on the other hand received rent and other dues from him. On the basis of such averments, the Plaintiff claimed to have acquired the right of an occupancy raiyat and alleged that though Defendants 1 to 10 had no semblance of right, title or possession in respect of the said property in question, they having forcibly tried to dispossess the Plaintiff, the latter filed the aforesaid suit.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement inter alia taking the stand that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and further the same was bad for non -joinder and mis -joinder of parties. The assertion that the disputed property was the 'Niz Dakhali' property of Defendant No. 11 being a part of SATEISI HAZARI estate was denied and so also the assertion that the Plaintiff had acquired the status of occupancy raiyat. In short, the said Defendants denied most of the plaint averments and took the stand that Bansi Swain and Naran Pradhan, father of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 respectively were inducted as tenants in respect of the disputed lands and they after reclaiming the lands were in possession thereof.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as fifteen issues. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. After discussing the evidence threadbare, the trial court while answering issue Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 15 held that the Plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant in respect of the disputed property. As he was an occupancy raiyat, he had got right title and possession of the said property and thus decreed the suit on contest against the Defendants. It injuncted the Defendants from entering into the disputed lands, disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff, damaging the same in any manner or cutting and carrying away the trees standing there on.