RAMAKRUSHNA PARAMGURU Vs. MRUTYUNJAYA DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff is in appeal against a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska, in a suit for title and possession in respect of 16 decimals of land appertaining to survey No. 748 and recovery of Re. 86/ - which was the mesne profits of the disputed property during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) HIS case was that one Narayan Padhi who was the owner of the property sold the same to him under an unregistered sale deed dated 7 -12 -1949 (Ext. 10). In the record of rights (Ext. 1) the Plaintiff 's name was duly entered after cancelling the name of his vendor. In 1954 the estate vested. The disputed property was a part of the whole inam village. He accordingly applied under Section 7 of the Estates Abolition Act in Claim Case No. 361/58. By order dated 12 -1 -1958 (Ext. 7) the disputed property along with other properties was finally settled with him on fair and equitable rent. Subsequently, the Defendants created the dispute over possession. This led to the initiation of a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that proceeding terminated in favour of the Defendants on 11.12 -1961. Hence the suit was filed on 10 -5 -1962.

(3.) BEFORE the Courts below, the question for decision, therefore, was as to who had good title -the Plaintiff or Satyabadi from when the Defendant ultimately claimed title. The validity of Ext. 10, the unregistered sale deed dated 7 -12 -1949 on one side and of Ext. A dated 22 -8 -1951 on the other was duly enquired into. The loomed trial judge found in favour of the Plaintiff. The lower appellate Court found in favour of the Defendant no, 1. That is how the Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court.