The sufficiency of property description in a plaint and the application of boundary descriptions in identifying land in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction.

2. Plaintiff is the deity represented through its marfatdar. Case of the plaintiff is that Sri Sri Kedarnath Mahaprabhu is the family deity of Ladi Sanyasi. Ladi Sanyasi installed the deity in the year 1971. He was the marfatdar of the deity. One Kalyan Mandap and flower garden exist over the suit land. The deity is the owner in possession of Ac.11.66 cents of land appertaining to Khata Nos.102/39 and 51/92 of Village-Gopalpur. He purchased the suit lands by means of a registered sale deed no.982/78 from Devarasetty Janardhan and his sons. Possession of the land was delivered to him. The suit lands were sold by mentioning the khata number, plot number, local name with boundaries. The suit lands could not be mutated in his name as the sale deed was impounded. Encroachment Case No.602 of 1984 was initiated against him in respect of Plot No.163/3 admeasuirng Ac.1.55 cents and Plot No.123/1 admeasuirng Ac.1.13 cents. In the said case, the marfatdar appeared and prayed for demarcation and identification of the lands; but then the land was not demarcated. After his death, his son Ladi Trinath Rao became the marfatdar of the deity. He demarcated the land by a survey knowing commissioner. It was found that item nos.4 and 5 mentioned in the sale deed appertains to Plot Nos.123/1 and 163/3. Though khata number and plot numbers have been wrongly mentioned, but the boundary tallies. It was further pleaded that the vendor of the plaintiff and the vendor’s vendor were in peaceful possession of the suit land. After them, he is in possession of the suit land. Since the defendants created disturbance, he filed the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants is that the plaintiff is in possession of Ac.2.10 cents of land appertaining to Khata No.51/92. There is no such Khata No.102/39. The plaintiff has no landed property in Village-Gopalpur. The plaintiff has not purchased the suit land. The suit plot no.163/3, Ac.7.20 cents and Plot No.123, Ac.8.07 appertaining to Khata No.52 have been recorded in the name of the State Government. The plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the suit land. As Ladi Sanyasi encroached upon Ac.1.55 cents appertaining to Plot No.163/3 and Ac.1.13 cents appertaining to Plot No.123/1 of Khata No.52 of village-Gopalpur, Encroachment Case No.602 of 1984 was initiated against him. The case was closed. Assessment fee of Rs.61/- and penalty of Rs.210/- was imposed on him. He had vacated the encroached lands. As he encroached upon an area of Ac.0.40 cents of land of Plot No.163/3, order of eviction was passed. The plaintiff approached this Court in OJC No.1485 of 1984 for settlement of the suit land. This Court directed the plaintiff to surrender an equal extent of land in exchange. The said matter is still sub-judice before R.D.C., Berhampur in R.C. Case No.5/83. Since the plaintiff could not surrender equal extent of land in exchange, he has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary, to substantiate their case. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff had not purchased the suit land from the vendor vide Ext.1. The vendor of the plaintiff was not owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plot number mentioned in the sale deed could not tally with the suit plot, so also the boundary. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jeypore, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC), Gunupur and renumbered a