SATRUGHNA JENA (DEAD) Vs. ARTA MOHAPATRA (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The dispute pertains to a betel garden measuring Ac.0.21 dec. appertaining to khata no.291, plot nos.402, 420 and 421 mouzaChandanpur.

(3.) Plaintiffs-Respondents instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that originally the suit land was recorded in the name of Kasinath Mohapatra. The suit land vested in the State in the year 1962. Kasinath died leaving behind his son Surendra and daughter Padmabati. Kasinath was in possession of the suit land. After his death, Surendra and Padmabati were in possession of the suit land. On 3.2.1970, Surendra alienated the suit property to Ramanath by means of a registered sale deed. On 25.8.1973, Padmabati sold her half share to Jyotshna, wife of Surendra. Jyotshna alienated the land to Ramanath by means of a registered sale deed dated 23.2.1976. On 1.4.1976, Ramanath sold the entire land to plaintiff no.1 by means of a registered sale deed. Prior to execution of Ext.1, Padmabati sold the suit property to the defendant by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.2.1976. Defendant filed OEA Lease Case No.626 of 1976 before the Tahasildar for determination of fair and equitable rent. Plaintiff no.1 filed a similar application on the basis of Ext.1, which was registered as OEA Lease Case No.660 of 1976. During pendency of the applications, a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ('OPLE') was initiated against the defendant, since he was in unauthorised occupation of the land. Penalty was imposed on him. By order dated 20.8.1977, the Tahasildar settled the land in favour of plaintiff no.1. In pursuance of the order, a rent schedule was granted. The defendant filed a petition to review the order. By order dated 18.9.1978, the Tahasildar reviewed the order and cancelled the rent schedule granted in favour of plaintiff no.1. Assailing the order dated 18.9.1978, plaintiff no.1 preferred OEA Appeal No.16/78. The appeal was sub judice. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.