ASHA DEI Vs. NARAN SETHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.2 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent no.3 instituted the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that his mother, defendant no.4 purchased the suit land. She constructed a thatched house over the same. Her name was recorded in the Municipal record. She executed a gift deed in his favour on 9.1.1980 and delivered possession. Defendants 1 to 3, who are brother-in-law, sister and nephew of the plaintiff, stayed in a portion of the suit house. As defendant no.1 claimed title over the same before the Settlement Authority, he asked them to vacate the suit house. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit.

(3.) The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Their case was that after death of husband of defendant no.4, she sought the help of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 purchased 100 dec. of suit land from Kartika Sethi, the brother of defendant no.4 by means of a registered sale deed dated 1.3.1961. As defendant no.1 was a member of the joint family, to avoid any future claim over the said land by his brothers, he purchased the same in the name of defendant no.4. Rest of the suit lands had been purchased by defendant no.1 from one Nilakantha Rath in the name of defendant no.4 (mother-in-law of defendant no.1). Their further case was that the plaintiff gained over defendant no.4 and obtained the gift deed in respect of the suit land. They were in possession over the suit land for more than 12 years and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. They had constructed a house and planted different trees over the suit land. The plaintiff was occupying a portion of the suit land with the permission of defendant no.1. It is apt to state here that during pendency of this appeal, respondent no.3 died, whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted.