SATYANANDA BARIK Vs. ANILAI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment and decree dated 22.3.1999 passed by the Learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A No. 29 of 1993 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 16.1.1993 passed by the Learned the then Sub - ordinate Judge, Keonjhar in T.S No. 3 of 1988, is assailed in this Second Appeal filed by Defendants of the said suit.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, as Plaintiff, filed T.S No. 3 of 1988 praying for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit 'C and C -1' schedule of lands for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering and disturbing in her possession over the suit scheduled lands and also for declaration that the alienation of 'D' schedule lands made in favour of Defendant No. 1(f) by Defendant No. 1 (a) is invalid.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Plaintiffs, Chintamani was the common ancestor of the parties. He was the recorded owner of lands more -fully described in 'B' schedule of the plaint. Benudhar and Panu were his two sons. Plaintiff was the only daughter of Benudhar, whereas Defendant Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (e) were the legal heirs of original Defendant Panu Barik and Defendant No. 1(f) was the wife of Defendant No. 1 (a). As per the plaint case, after the death of Chintamani his two sons, i.e., Panu and Benudhar amicably partitioned the properties situated in three villages, i.e., Jamunapasi, Chandaposi and Sakarpul in the year 1972. In the said partition lands appertaining to 'C and C -1' schedule were allotted to Benudhar, the father of the Plaintiff, and was in exclusive possession of the same. Benudhar died in the year 1971. After his death Plaintiff possessed the lands left by her father and also occupied the dwelling house. Unfortunately, during current settlement the lands of village Jamunaposi and Sankarpur were recorded jointly in the name of Plaintiff and original Defendant Panu, though separate 'patta' had been issued in respect of the lands situated at village Chandaposi . Taking advantage of such joint recording, it was alleged, Panu with his two sons, created disturbances in the possession of the Plaintiff. Consequently the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.