REBATI DEI Vs. KUNJA BIHARI MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and/or in the alternative for recovery of possession and injunction in respect of disputed plot No. 1759 measuring Ac. 0.70 decimals and plot No. 1758 measuring Ac. 0.13 decimals appertaining to Touzi No. 2900 of mouja Kantaballavpur in the district of Jagatsinghpur having been dismissed, she is in appeal. Her case is, one Bhagaban Mohapatra, an ex -intermediary was the original owner of the land. By virtue of the provisions under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, the 'OEA Act') the land in dispute having been vested with the State Government, subsequently said Bhagaban Mohapatra on an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act got the land settled in his name by order of the O.E.A. Collector dated 3.9.1959. On 22.3.1966 while said Bhagaban was possessing the land in his own right, title and interest, he transferred the same to one Mayadhar Mohapatra by way of registered sale deed and Mayadhar in his turn having such right and possession transferred the land in favour of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 25.1.1975. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the defendants who are co -sharers of the family of the plaintiff laid a claim in respect of the disputed land and threatened dispossession she was constrained to file the suit for reliefs claimed.

(2.) THE defendants who are admittedly the co -sharers in their pleadings stated that Bhagaban Mohapatra surreptitiously got the land recorded in his name before the Collector by practising fraud by suppressing notices etc. In the alternative, they claim that even assuming the settlement in favour of Bhagaban was a valid one yet his other co -sharers such as, Nilamani and Natabara being in joint possession of the land in dispute, such settlement in the name of Bhagaban alone would also ensure to their benefit and therefore notwithstanding the fact of such settlement, the defendants have got their right, title and interest also in the property in question.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the sale -deeds in favour of Mayadhar by Bhagaban nor by Mayadhar in favour of the plaintiff has been challenged in the present case. Since they are not challenged, they are held to be valid transfers in favour of the transferees.