MANA BISOI Vs. POTNURU KRISHNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs-Respondents instituted the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that Soda Bisoi, father of the defendant, the original owner of lands locally known as Khari Bhumi alias Kharipotti with rent of 12 putties of paddy and Rs.24/- situated in mouza-Bhatigaon, Dist.-Koraput. The settlement operation was started in Boriguma area in the year 1953 for the first time. Prior to settlement, the lands were being identified by their boundaries and yield. Soda Bisoi used to pay rent. To press his legal necessity, he sold the northern portion with boundaries and rent of six putties of paddy and Rs.3/- out of his said lands to P. Somulu by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.11936. Possession was duly delivered to him. P. Somulu was in possession of the land. After him, the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. In the settlement operation of the year 1953, the land was assigned with khata no.130, plot no.338, Ac.1.62 cents and plot no.346, Ac.1.56 cents. The suit land appertaining to khata no.120, plot no.342/677, Ac.0.40 cents, which is the western portion of the lands purchased by P. Somulu, was not recorded in his name during the settlement operation. P. Somulu was not aware of the same. But then, he and his successors were in possession of the same. In the year 1993, the plaintiffs in order to construct a pump house adjoining the west of their land, got their land surveyed. They could ascertain that the western portion measuring Ac.0.40 cents had been recorded in the name of the father of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed M.C. No.1091/93 before the Tahasildar, Boriguma to record the suit land in their names. The Tahasildar allowed the application on 18.5.1993. The defendant filed appeal against the said order. The case was remanded to the Tahasildar for fresh disposal. On 8.11.1995, the defendant forcibly entered into the same, cut and removed the paddy crops grown by the plaintiffs. The defendant has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant was that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit land is not the portion of the purchased land of the father of the plaintiffs. The suit land belonged to his father. The suit land had been rightly recorded in the name of the father of the defendant. The father of the defendant and after him, the defendant is in possession of the suit land. The order dated 15.1995 of the Tahasildar, Boriguma is legal and valid. Neither the father of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. The defendant has also claimed title by way of adverse possession.