RAJANI ROUTRAY Vs. KAMAL KUMARI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against a confirming decision. Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed land. The disputed land is recorded as plot No. 195 in 1962 Settlement with an area of Ac 0.115 decimals. It corresponds to a portion of plot No. 221 of 1929 -30 Settlement. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the disputed plot originally belonged to Lava Dei who sold the same to plaintiff's husband by a registered sale deed dated 4.4.1959 and delivered possession thereof. At the time of the sale, the disputed plot has been recorded as plot No. 221 of in Sabik Khata No. 57 of Current Settlement Record - of -Rights (i.e. 1929 -30). The disputed plot was recorded in the name of the husband of the plaintiff in the year 1962. After death of plaintiff's husband in the year 1972, the plaintiff and her two daughters became the owners of the property and subsequently the two daughters relinquished their claim over the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff who became the sole owner of the same. The plaintiff has constructed a pucca house consisting of two rooms over the disputed land. The defendants who are the owners of adjacent Plot No. 196 were creating disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff with the help of the local police forcing the plaintiff to file the suit for injunction.

(2.) THE defendants who are wife and husband respectively, filed joint written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. It was pleaded by the defendants that by registered sale deed dated 28.9.1951, one Souri Devi had purchased Ac. 0.220 decimals from plot No. 222 measuring Ac. 0.590 decimals and Ac. 0.242 decimals from plot No. 25 1 Ac. 0.624 decimals from the original owner's Ganesh Jena and his co -sharers. Subsequently, Souri Devi mortgaged her above purchased property in favour of one Lava Dei and the latter filed a suit in the year 1954 for foreclosure. At the time of filing the suit, instead of mentioning plot No. 251, by mistake plot No. 221 was mentioned in the plaint, and the said mistake was continued in the decree and the sale certificate. However, the boundaries give in the plaint and decree clearly indicated that the property related to purchased portion of plot No. 222 and plot No. 251. In spite of aforesaid wrong description in the plaint and the sale certificate relating to plot No. 221 instead of 251. Lava Dei actually got possession of plot No. 251. Subsequently she sold the property to plaintiff's husband wherein plot No. 221 had been included by mistake, but actually possession of plot No. 251 had been delivered. The husband of the plaintiff had sold Ac. 0.126 decimals out of plot No. 221 to Bhabagrahi Jena. In the said sale deed it had been shown that the public road was to the west of the land sold which clearly indicated that the property sold related to plot No. 251, as the road is actually to the east of plot No. 221 and not to west of plot No. 221. It was further pleaded that admittedly plot No. 1 96 belongs to defendant No. l and a building has been constructed on it with boundary walls on all sides except to the adjoining south where plot No. 1 95 is situate. It was further claimed that plot No. 195 actually belongs to defendant No. 2 who has purchased Ac. 0.72 decimals from the previous owner. It is claimed that the defendants have been in possession of the purchased portion of plot No. 195 as well as entire plot No. 196.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court on independent consideration of the materials on record has confirmed the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal.