SK JAN HOSSAIN Vs. MAITHILI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant nos.3 to 6 are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 is that the suit land originally belonged to one Nial Papamma, who was recorded as Darchandanadar in the C.S. ROR. She was in possession of the land. After death of Nial Papamma, her daughter Rewa Lachhama, defendant no.1, inherited the suit property. Banchhanidhi Swain was the Chandanadar. Banchhanidhi had executed a registered lease deed in her favour on 1.12.1944. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 sold Ac.0.50 dec. of land out of Ac.0.110 dec. of land appertaining to plot no.731 to her by means of a registered sale deed dated 1.5.65 for a consideration of Rs.4500/-. On 11.2.66, the defendant no.1 sold Ac.0.30 dec. from the same plot for a consideration of Rs.1500/- to her and delivered possession. She has constructed a house. She is in possession of the same. When the defendant nos.2 to 6 interfered with her possession, her husband initiated a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. On enquiry, it was found that she was in possession. The defendants, who have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same, claimed possession over Ac.0.55 dec. of land. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant no.1, the vendor of the plaintiff, filed written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff. The defendant nos.2 to 6 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendants, the name of Nial Papamma, w/o-Abdul Kadar had been erroneously recorded as Darchandanadar in respect of plot no.731. One Elgada Papaya and Kaital Apal Swamy had their houses over portions of the suit plot either as Darchandanadar or as Dar Darchandanadar. After the death of Nial Papamma, the Chandanadar resumed possession of the suit plot and settled the portions of the suit land in favour of the above mentioned Darchandanadars. Rewa Lachhama was not related to Nial Papamma. She obtained a fresh sublease on 1.12.44 collusively. On 15.6.45, P. Appalama purchased Ac.0.10 dec. from Elgada Papaya out of Ac.0.20 dec. Thereafter she sold the same to Kumar Sahu by means of a registered sale deed dated 8.11.45. Elgada Papaya also sold the other Ac.0.10 dec. of land by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.7.47 to Bhramar Sahu and Kumar Sahu. Thus Bhramar Sahu and Kumar Sahu purchased the entire Darpatadar right of Elgada Papaya in respect of Ac.0.20 dec. of land. One Gudu Ashreya who had got Ac.0.30 dec. of land in the suit plot from Kaital Apalswamy lost the same in T.S. No.168 of 47. The property was purchased in court auction by one Ahamad Bux, who sold the same to one S. Mutialama by a registered sale deed dated 30.12.48 who in turn sold the same to Bhramar Sahu and others by a registered sale deed dated 25.1.49. Thus Bhramar Sahu and others were in possession of Ac.0.50 dec. of land. They sold Ac.0.10 dec. to the defendant nos.2 to 6 by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.10.60, which on measurement was found to be Ac.0.15 dec. Again Bhramar Sahu and others sold Ac.0.32 dec. and Ac.0.13 dec. of land respectively with houses thereon to the defendant nos.2 to 6 by means of registered sale deeds dated 3.12.60 and 10.6.61. Though the defendants purchased Ac.0.50 dec. from Bhramar Sahu and others, but on measurement the area comes to Ac.0.55 dec. Therefore the defendants obtained a lease deed from defendant no.1, the vendor of the plaintiff in respect of Ac.0.5 dec. of land from the suit plot. It is further pleaded that when defendant no.1 created disturbance with their possession, they filed Criminal Misc. Case No.211/63-64. The proceeding terminated in favour of defendant no.2 on 30.5.64. Thereafter defendant no.1 demanded rent from the defendants. They paid the rent. Defendant no.1 gave her consent to the defendants to the transfer of Ac.0.55 dec. of land. The plaintiff and her husband colluded with defendant no.1 and obtained the fake sale deeds. The plaintiff filed Criminal Misc. Case No.379 of 66, which was decided against them. But then, in Criminal Revision No.238 of 67, the court directed to exclude the Ac.0.55 dec. of land purchased by the defendants. The defendant nos.2 to 6 have alternatively pleaded that they are in possession of Ac.0.55 dec. of land since the date of purchase to the knowledge of all and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession.