LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-82

PRASANNA KUMAR SINGH Vs. PURANDAR ROUT AND ORS.

Decided On April 16, 2009
Prasanna Kumar Singh Appellant
V/S
Purandar Rout And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was Defendant No. 3, in T. S. No. 30 of 1982, of the court of the then Sub -ordinate Judge, Keonjhar. In this Second Appeal, the Appellant seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1999 and 24.3.1999 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T. A. No. 53 of 1992, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in T. S. No. 30 of 1982.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, as Plaintiff, filed the suit inter alia praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule land or m the alternative to declare the right, title and interest of the legal heirs of late Digambar Rout. The further prayer was to evict Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the suit land and to put the Plaintiff in possession thereof. There was a further prayer to direct Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pull down the brick was constructed over the suit land at their own cost, within the time to be fixed by the court, and for other ancillary reliefs.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 3 are no way connected with the family of the Plaintiff, but were adjacent land owners. They had no right over the suit land. Unfortunately, however, on 12th June, 1970 Defendant No. 1 forcibly closed the passage by putting green fence. Consequently, a proceeding under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and in the said proceeding Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to remove the encroachment. While matter stood thus, Defendant No. 3, the present Appellant, married the daughter of Defendant No. 4, the brother of the Plaintiff. Taking advantage of the said relationship and absence of the Plaintiff from the village, he managed to get his possession noted in the remarks column of the Record of Rights published by the settlement authorities. It is further alleged that being emboldened by such entry Defendant No. 3 constructed a brick wall on the passage. Having no other alternative, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.