UMA DEVI Vs. NARAYAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Aska, in a suit for declaration of the right of occupancy over the suit land measuring 35.10 acres and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering upon or otherwise interfering with the suit lands or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit lands.

(2.) Plaintiffs case, in short, in that one Harihar Misra purchased one-fourth interest in the property belonging to Nayak family of village Tilasingi for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- in the year 1949. The said Harihar again purchased half share of the self-same joint property in the year 1955 through registered sale deeds (Exts. 2, 3, 4 and 5) from co-sharers for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that the consideration for the above transactions had been paid from time to time in between 1984 and 1955. The said Harihar instituted Title Suit No. 144 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsif, Aska, for partition and separate possession of his three-fourth share. During the pendency of the said suit, he executed a registered agreement (Ext. 19) dt. 26-10-1959 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land on receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. The partition suit was compromised on 9-5-1960. The agreement (Ext. 19) was treated as a conveyance and the registering authority realised the stamp duty from the plaintiff and, therefore, title with respect to the suit property passed to the plaintiffs under Ext. 19. But the plaintiffs by way of abundant caution got another sale deed (Ext. 17) on 20-5-1965. Ever since the date of execution of Ext. 19, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land paying rentals therefor and in the settlement operation, plaintiffs' names have been recorded in the revenue papers. A portion of the suit land, however, was wrongly recorded in the names of defendants 4 to 14 and being emboldened by the said erroneous entry, the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and also dug a drain through the suit land and, therefore, the present suit for the reliefs as aforesaid has been filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendants 4 to 14 have remained ex parte.