The plaintiff's establishment of right, title, and interest over the suit land through a registered sale deed shifted the onus to the defendant to disprove the same, which was not substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful defendant as the appellant here being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.S. No. 130 of 1997 directing him to deliver the possession of the suit land together with the construction standing thereon to the plaintiff-respondent has filed this appeal.

2. Plaintiff’s case is that the defendant was the original owner of the land under plot no. 1820/3235 of khata no.1030/893 of mouza Baidyanathpur in the township of Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. Being the owner in possession of the suit land, the defendant had sold the land measuring Ac 0.020 decimals from out of that plot in total Ac 0.055 decimals to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 25.02.1983 for valuable consideration followed by delivery of possession. Accordingly, the plaintiff deriving the title over that purchased land, possessed the same. It is her further case that she had raised foundation for the building over the suit land and then proceeded with the construction of the house which had not been completed. It is alleged that one day in the month of March, 1995 defendant openly declared in the locality that he would trespass upon the suit land and dispossess the plaintiff. Thus apprehending dispossession from the suit land in the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession.

3. The defendant coming to contest the suit stoutly denied to have sold the suit land to the plaintiff by executing the registered sale deed on 25.02.1983. He has also denied to have ever delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff to have ever possessed the suit land. According to him, the plaintiff has never possessed the suit land carrying the title and has asserted that the possession of the suit land had remained with him all along as its owner and accordingly the revenue records is standing in his name. The claim of the plaintiff that he had made the foundation and constructed the house over the suit land is also denied. It is his specific case that he has constructed the house over the northern portion of the suit land and the southern portion still remains vacant. The suit land is said to have been given in mortgage to the Bank for obtaining the house building loan for construction of another house on that southern portion of the suit land. The first installment of the loan having been disbursed, the defendant claimed to have also made construction of the house on the southern portion of the suit plot. Again when in second phase, the installment was released, he asserted to have completed the roof work of the house. Thus the claim of the plaintiff as regards her right, title and interest over the suit land and the constructive possession stand denied with further pleading that there remains no cause of action to file the suit which is also said to be imaginary and the suit is further said to be barred by limitation.

4. Faced with the rival pleadings, the trial court framed as many as five issues, which are the followings:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit property?

(2) Whether the defendant has executed the registered sale deed dated 25.02.1983 in favour of the plaintiff?

(3) Whether the defendant trespassed into the suit property and dispossesses the plaintiff from the lawful possession?

(4) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(5) To what relief plaintiff is entitled to?”

5. The trial court has rightly taken up issue nos. 1 to 3 for decision as in that way it can be properly decided by clubbing by proper discussion of the evidence in the touch stone of the pleadings since one is having the impact over the other. The trial court thus taking up the above three issues together for decision has answered at the ultimatum that the plaintiff has the exclusive right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of her purchase by registered s