MURALIDHAR MAJHI Vs. BRAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 as Plaintiff filed T.S. No. 55/86 -1 before the then Munsif, Keonjhar, inter alia, praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land measuring Ac.0.2 decs appertaining to Hal Plot No. 917 from Defendant No. 1 and Ac.0.01 dec. appertaining to Hal Plot No. 918 from Defendant No. 2. The description of the suit property in detail was given in the plaint schedule.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the plaint the suit property was part and parcel of Sabik Plot No. 165 measuring an area of Ac.0.14 decs. The said lands belonged to the predecessors of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3. To appreciate the facts, it would be necessary to refer to the genealogy of the family of Plaintiff. Jagu RaghuGovinda Kathia GaniaRama Subhadra SuryamaniBrajendra Hira(Plaintiff) (Defendant No. 3) From the aforesaid genealogy, it appears that Govinda, S/o. Jagu died leaving behind his son Rama and daughter Subhadra. Rama died issueless. Plaintiff is the son of Subhadra. Similarly, Raghu died leaving behind his son Kathia and Gania. Kathia died issueless. Gania died leaving behind his widow Suryamani and daughter Hiramani (Defendant No. 3). Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are strangers to the family. It is further averred that as Gania, S/o. Raghu, had no issues, he gifted Ac.0.5 decs out of Ac.0.14 decs of Sabik Plot No. 165 and half decimal out of one dec appertaining to Plot No. 166 and Ac.l. 5 dec out of Ac.0.03 decs appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 167 to the plain tiff by registered deed. After the death of Gania his wife Suryamani and daughter Hiramani possessed the lands and did not part with it. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession as stated earlier. The said suit was decreed in terms of a compromise. Plaintiff got Ac.0.07 decs out of Ac.0.14 decs of Sabik Plot No. 165. Since the settlement was over by the time the decree was passed, it is alleged, only Ac.0.5. decs of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 165, obtained under the gift deed, was recorded in favour of the Plaintiff and the rest of the land was recorded in favour of Suryamani and Hiramani. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, it is averred in the plaint are neighbouring adjacent land owners. Taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff was staying outside the State, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 managed to get forcible note of possession over Ac.0.03 dec of land out of Sabik Plot No. 165 in the final Record of Rights, though they had no right, title over the same and the Plaintiff on coming to know about the said fact was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the averments made in the plaint and written statement, the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. In order to substantiate their case the Plaintiff got examined two witnesses, and exhibited four documents. The Defendants got five witnesses examined and exhibited four documents. After threadbare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court answered each of the issue in favour of the Plaintiff and held that the Plaintiff had got right, title and interest over the suit land and the Defendants have totally failed to prove that they had acquired adverse possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession was decreed and the Defendants 1 and 2 were directed to vacate the suit lands after removing the structures there from.