GOPAL KRUSHNA PANDA Vs. HARIMOHAN PANIGRAHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest, permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on 4.11965 from defendant no.2 by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. Possession was duly delivered to him. He used to pay cist to the Government. He filed Mutation Case No.1085/87 before the Tahasildar for mutation of the land. The petition was rejected on the ground that the land had already been mutated in favour of the defendant no.1. Against the said order, he filed appeal before the S.D.O., Berhampur. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for reconsideration. While the matter stood thus, the defendant no.1 made an attempt to alienate the suit land and created disturbances in his possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that defendant no.2 had not alienated the suit land to the plaintiff nor delivered possession. Plaintiff had no title or possession over the suit land. Plaintiff managed to obtain a fake sale deed. The specific case of the defendant no.1 was that defendant no.2 purchased a piece of land including the suit land from one D. Dandasi by means of a registered sale deed dated 5.12.64. Thereafter he alienated the land to one Surendranath Mishra on 8.4.72 by means of a registered sale deed no.1168/72. Surendranath Mishra sold the suit land to J. Jagyanarayana Prusti by means of a registered sale deed dated 19.4.76. Thereafter Jagyanarayana Prusti sold the land to him by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.7.79. Possession was duly delivered to him. He is in possession of the suit land. The Mutation Officer had rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 was set exparte.