SMT. SABITRI SAHU Vs. TRINATH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Gajapati-Parlakhemundi in R.F.A. No.18 of 2010 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parlakhemundi in Civil Suit No.53 of 2007.

(2.) Facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Respondent no. 2 as the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of possession, permanent injunction.....so far as the suit land is concerned. That her husband with his brother were originally the owners of land measuring Ac.0.103 dec. of homestead and in an amicable partition her husband got a thatched house with some vacant land adjoining thereto. The eastern side fell to the share of her husband's brother. It is further stated that the plaintiff's husband sold away land measuring 7 feet and 4 inches X 150 feet, to the appellant by a registered sale deed in the year 1980 and the rest of his land was lying vacant. The children of the plaintiff got married in the meantime and her husband became physically weak. So he executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 22.12.2002 and thereafter died on 31.05.2003. It is stated that the respondent no.1 being the sole defendant initially in the suit with the consent of the husband of the plaintiff erected a shed over a portion of the suit land when the plaintiff was residing at her parent's place. In the year 2007 she came to Paralakhemundi and wanted to construct a house over the suit land. The defendant no.1 then did not vacate. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant no.1 while traversing the plaint averments claimed that he has been in possession of the suit land under an impression that it is a piece of Government land. He claims to have constructed a thatched house over the same; running a broiler farm and also carrying on poultry business. Thus, he claimed to have perfected title over the suit land by adverse possession.