PANCHANAN DAS Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant in a reversing judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that one Giridhari Swain was the absolute owner of the suit property. He died in the year 1945 leaving behind his widow Atulmani and two daughters, namely, Basi and Lochana. After death of Giridhari, his widow Atulmani succeeded to his properties. In the Hal settlement ROR, the name of Atulmani had been recorded. While the matter stood thus, Atulmani sold the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.5.1986 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession to him. The plaintiff used to pay rent. Defendants who have no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit property created disturbances in his possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that Giridhari died in the year 1959 leaving behind his widow Atulmani and two daughters Basi and Lochana. After death of Giridhiar, Atulmani remarried to one Dhobei Mohanty and blessed with a daughter. After remarriage, she had no right over the property of Giridhari. Basi, daughter of Giridhari, sold her half interest in favour of defendant by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1986 and delivered possession. He is in possession of the suit property. Taking advantage of wrong entry in the hal ROR, the plaintiff snatched away a nominal sale deed from Atulmani.