P.K.Mohanti, J. - (1.)This appeal by defendant No. 1 is against the confirming judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Dhenkanal passed in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of 0.55 acre of land appertaining to plot No, 3000 situated within the town area of Dhenkanal.
(2.)Plots Nos. 2999 and 3000 are adjacent to each other. In the current settlement record-of-rights finally published in December, 1965 plot No. 2999 was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and plot No. 3000 in the name of the plaintiffs, vide Exts. D and 2. The plaintiffs' case was that their ancestors had allowed the father of defendant No. 1 to possess a portion of the homestead plot No. 2999 and after his death the defendants have been residing there. During the current settlement operations there was dispute between the parties with regard to plot No. 2999 but it was ultimately recorded in the name of defendant No. 1. When the plaintiffs were contemplating to file a suit against the defendant No. 1 in respect of that plot the defendants forcibly possessed the disputed plot No. 3000 in January, 1966. So the plaintiffs filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs treating the defendants as trespassers.
(3.)The defence case was that Trailokya Biswal, the father of defendant No. 1 possessed both the plots Nos. 2999 and 3000 with the permission of late Lambodar Patnaik, one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, he purchased both the plots from the said Lambodar Patnaik for a sum of Rs. 80/by an unstamped and unregistered sale deed which was lost about 40 years back when the house of the defendants was burnt by fire accident. Trailokya Biswal died about 30 years prior to the suit and after his death defendant No. 1 has been in possession of the disputed land along with plot No. 2999 as before. Their alternative case was that defendant No. 1 had perfected her title by adverse possession being in continuous possession of the land for over 12 years.