JUDGMENT

The appellant by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bolangir in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2002 dismissing her appeal under Section 96 of the Code.

The appellant as the plaintiff has filed the suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 53 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bolangir for declaration of her right, title, interest and confirmation of possession, alternatively for recovery of possession and permanent injunction insofar as the suit land is concerned. Her suit having been dismissed, she had filed the first appeal as aforesaid, which has also met the same fate.

So, in this appeal while praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff is praying for passing a decree in her suit granting her the reliefs as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Abhaya Prasad Patnaik, who was in possession of the same. It is stated that on 20.12.1962, said Abhaya Prasad Patnaik sold the land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 85/- and delivered its possession. The transactions is said to have been evidenced by execution of a deed of sale by Abhaya Prasad Patnaik on a stamp paper. The plaintiff claims to have been in possession of the suit land described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint as per the description contained in the record of the current settlement corresponds to the land as described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint in accordance with the record of the settlement of the year 1936.

It is stated that the plaintiff while in possession of the suit land sometime in the month of January, 2000 while was getting the land demarcated came to know that in the current settlement, it was recorded in the Rakhit Khata in the name of the State. In view of such recording ignoring the “Sthitiban Status” of a the land as also the plaintiff’s claim going to caste cloud upon the right of the plaintiff, she filed the suit after issuance of the notice under Section 80 of the Code notice as mandated in law which did not arouse any response.

4. The defendant in the written statement disputed the fact that the land described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint are the as that of schedule ‘B’ and the description corresponds to each other. It is, however, stated that schedule ‘A’ land as per the record of the year 1936 stood recorded in the name of Dhobei Charan Pattnaik, Anam Pattnaik, Purusottam Pattnaik and Achut Pattnaik all sons of Basudeb Pattnaik. It is further stated that in respect of such recording they were never in possession of the schedule ‘A’ land and the said Abhaya Prasad Patnaik from whom the plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 85/- was never the Karta of the family and had not such authority to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. It is stated that he had never sold the suit land and the documents filed in support of the same are all fabricated documents. The case of the plaintiff that he has been in possession of the suit land stands denied. It is asserted that the recording of the suit land in the record of the current settlement is correct.

5. The trial Court on such rival pleadings is seen to have very rightly framed all the ten issues.

On analysis of evidence in the backdrop of the rival case, it has answered issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff clearly holding that the land described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint as per the records of 1936 settlement are the same land as described in schedule ‘N’ of the plaint in the record of the current settlement.

6. Insofar as the issue no. 2 is concerned, upon scrutiny of evidence, the trial Court has found the property to