JUDGMENT

B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The sole defendant in Title Suit No. 49 of 1990 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal is the appellant in this appeal after having suffered a decree of eviction passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for demarcation of the suit land measuring 24 decimals out of 91 decimals in Hal Plot No. 176 of Khata No. 229 of Mouza Mahinsapat described in the ‘A’ Schedule of the plaint, recovery of possession and for declara¬tion of her right, title and interest in respect thereof.

3. The plaintiff’s case in short was that she obtained the suit land on the basis of a lease granted in her favour on 24.2.1950 and from then onwards she claimed to have been in possession of the same. Her name was separately mutated and patta was accordingly issued in the year 1986. After obtaining the land on lease, she had planted 35 coconut trees and had been raising gingili and early variety of paddy over the suit land on alterna¬tive year. After her marriage the brother of the plaintiff used to look after the suit land on her behalf. The plaintiff's brother Basanta Kumar Satpathy, being an employee of OSRTC was posted at Rourkela, therefore, he could not keep close watch over the suit land. Taking advantage of his absence, the defendant attempted to encroach upon the southern portion of the suit land as she was having her own land on its north. The plaintiff’s brother after getting information about the aforesaid encroachment immediately came to Dhenkanal, contacted the defendant and ascertained about the encroachment from her. On the suggestion of the defendant service of an Amin was requisitioned by filing a demarcation case before the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal. The Tahasil Amin although went to the suit land on 4.7.1989, but due to the defiant attitude of the defendant, it could not be measured.

4. The appellant’s case in the trial Court was that she is the owner in possession of Sabik Plot No. 15/1941 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 188 which situates to the adjoining west of the suit land. She had purchased that land under a registered Sale deed bearing No. 3094 dated 6.5.1988 from one Rebati Dei and has constructed her residential house thereon. It is further stated that at the time of her purchase, the appellant’s vendor was in possession of the said land and accordingly delivery of posses¬sion of the same was given to her. Since then she has been con¬tinuing in possession peacefully without resistance from any other quarter. She also claimed that she had various fruit bear¬ing trees and dug a well on the suit land.

5. A plea of adverse possession has been taken by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiff. Thus it is claimed that she has acquired absolute title over the suit land and, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff should be non-suited. Many pleas have been taken by the defendant to the effect that the suit was under-valued and the trial Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and some other points relating to title to the suit land.

6. The trial Court considering the evidence on record however, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has got title over the suit property and directed the plaintiff to deposit deficit Court fee and other fees for deputation of a Civil Court Commissioner after which the suit land could be demarcated and the defendant was directed to give delivery of possession to the plaintiff. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on simi¬lar grounds.

7. Mr. B. N. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated the same points as advanced by the appellant in the appellate Court. At the out-set a ground has been taken against the plaintiff regarding the valuation men¬tioned in the plaint and also with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It has been submitted that when the defendant herself had purchased the land in the year 1988, it appears strange to note why she did n