DIGA GOUD Vs. SANKRI GOUD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the suit for permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that Rupadhar Gountia and Sapneswar Gountia were Gountias of the village. They had appointed the plaintiff as Nariha of their village to render services to the visiting officers and public servants. The plaintiff has been rendering services to the aforesaid persons from the date of appointment. Schedule-A land has been recorded as Gram Kota land in the name of Gountias. Out of the same, Schedule-B land was settled in his favour. He is in possession of the same. The defendant has no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. On 21.7.1992, defendant trespassed into a portion of Schedule-C land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit.

(3.) Defendant filed a written statement denying the title and possession of the plaintiff. Case of the defendant is that he is the brother of the plaintiff. Their father Shiba Goud was appointed as Nariha of the village. After his death, they are in possession of Schedule-B land as Nariha. By amicable partition, Schedule-C land fell to his share. He is in possession of the same.