RAGHU BAGAR Vs. BAIKUNTHA GOUR @ SANDHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against reversing judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and confirmation of possession. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property was the ancestral property of Rushi Goud. Rushi Goud died leaving behind him sons Hiad, Baikuntha, plaintiff, and Maheswar. Hiad died leaving behind him son, Sankri. Maheswar died issueless. The plaintiff and proforma defendant are the surviving heirs. He is in possession over the suit land. Defendant no.1 had no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. Defendant no.1 managed to get his name recorded in the major settlement R.O.R. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant no.1 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no.1 was that Rushi sold the suit land to one Kangalu Chamar prior to 1945. The suit land had been mutated in the name of Kangalu. After his death, his son Baldev Chamar sold the suit land to one Ramesh Chandra Panda by means of a registered sale deed of the year 1969. Thereafter, Ramesh sold the suit land to the defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed of the year 1970. He is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus of the true owner for more than the statutory period and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession.