PURUSOTTAM SANTARA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and the entry in the M.S. ROR is wrong.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Kanheilal Kar, ex-intermediary. He executed an unregistered amalanama pata in favour of Sambhu Barik fifty five years back. Sambhu reclaimed the suit land. The land was mutated in his name. He paid rent to the ex-intermediary. After vesting of the estate, ex-intermediary submitted the rent roll in the name of Sambhu, whereafter T.L was opened. Sambhu paid rent to the Government. He was recognized as a raiyat by the Government. To press the legal necessity, Sambhu sold the suit land to Krupasindhu Santara and Paramananda Santara by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.7.1961 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The land was mutated in their names. Krupasindhu and Paramananda were two brothers. Krupasindhu had no son. Plaintiff is the son of Paramananda. Krupasindhu gifted his 50% share to the plaintiff by means of a registered gift deed dated 3.3.1978 and delivered possession. After death of his father, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit property. He used to pay rent. But then, in the major settlement ROR published on 9.10.1990, the suit land has been wrongly recorded under Abadajogya Anabadi Khata in the name of the Government. In the remarks column, the possession of the plaintiff has been reflected. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit after issuing notice under Sec. 80 CPC to the defendant.

(3.) Defendant has not filed the written statement, but participated in the trial. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, eight documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the suit land was not settled in favour of ex-intermediary. The tenancy ledger was not proved. The rent had been accepted by the Government without prejudice. The same cannot create any right in favour of the plaintiff. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.57 of 1999 before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was eventually dismissed.