DHANESWAR MAHANTY Vs. SITANATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are in appeal against the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Puri allowing plaintiffs' claim for title and recovery of possession of the disputed property.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit on 1-12-1965 alleging that the disputed property which is a house and the property appurtenant to it within municipal holding No. 426 of Ward No. 8 of Puri Town happened to be their ancestral property. Defendants 1 to 3 are close relations of the plaintiffs. Father of defendants 2 and 3 came to seek service at Puri and was allowed to remain with the plaintiffs' father in the disputed house as an act of compassion. He continued to live there till his death in 1930. Defendant No. 3 was then a small boy and was brought up in the house by a maid servant who died in 1960. Plaintiffs' father died in 1936 and their mother lived in the disputed house till she was moved to the village in 1956. The house was under the occupation of the maid servant and was taken care of by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 got service in Radha-ballavi Math. In 1961, plaintiff No. 1 came to know that defendant No. 1 had got himself mutated in the municipal records without plaintiffs' knowledge. As plaintiffs were living away with plaintiff No. 1 who was serving elsewhere, this fact had not been known earlier. On plaintiff No. 1's application, his name was mutated in the municipal record. When plaintiff No. 1 ultimately wanted to settle down at Puri on permanent basis in 1962 when he superannuated from service, he required the defendants to deliver vacant possession. Defendants did not do so though they had promised and, therefore, ultimately the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants filed separate written statements, but essentially took the same defence. They pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and they had acquired title by adverse possession. They further pleaded that they had undertaken substantial repairs to the house at their cost.