BALARAM NAYAK Vs. JUDHISTIR ROUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit land. The suit land has been recorded in his name. He is in possession of the same. He is paying rent. Defendant no.1 is the friend of his brother. Defendants 2 to 5 are the family members of defendant no.1. The plaintiff entrusted defendant no.1 to supervise the suit land. Taking advantage of the same, defendant no.1 created a forged unregistered sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land. He had not executed any document in favour of any body. Neither any consideration amount was paid nor possession was delivered. On 16.11.1988 the defendants made an attempt to enter into a portion of the suit house, but due to resistance of the plaintiff, they failed in their attempt. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, the suit land was originally Gramakantha Paramboke. The Government of Orissa was the owner of the same. The father of the plaintiff, Kantha Nayak was in possession of the said land. After him, the plaintiff was in possession of the same. For legal necessity, he sold the said land to defendant no.1 for a consideration of Rs.2, 400/- by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 12.4.1970. At the time of the sale, there was a small thatched house over the suit land. Possession was delivered to defendant no.1. They are in possession of the suit land since then. They have acquired title by way of adverse possession.