The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession without proof of hostile animus does not mature to possessory title, and transfer of property worth more than Rs. 100.00 has to be effected by a registered instrument.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Naidu, J. - The original Appellant Kasinath Panda was the Defendant in Original Suit No. 127 of 1981-1 of the Court of the then Munsif, Bhubaneswar. He having expired during pendency of the present litigation, his L.Rs have been substituted in his place as the Appellants. Similarly, the original Plaintiff in the said suit, namely, Silla Satyabadi Patra having expired, his L.Rs have been substituted in his place who are the present Respondents.

2. The aforesaid Original Suit was filed by Silla Satyabadi Patra, the predecessor of the present Respondents, with a prayer for declaration that all right, title and interest of the Defendant who were Kasinath Panda (deceased Defendant No. 1) and his family members (Defendaints 2 to 5) in respect of the suit property had extinguished in his (Plaintiff) favour as also for eviction of the Defendants from the said property.

3. It was averred by the Plaintiff that the suit property consists of an area measuring 100' x 32' appertaining to SCR Plot Nos.30 and 30A of Bapuji Nagar, P.S. Capital, Bhubaneswar with an asbestos room standing on plot No. 30A more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. According to the Plaintiff, suit plot No. 30 belonged to Defendant No. 1 who was in possession thereof along with the adjoining plot No. 30A. Defendant No. 1 had constructed an asbestos room on plot No. 30A. The land appertaining to plot No. 30 belonged to Government and a lease in respect of that plot had been granted in favour of Defendant No. 1 by Government and there is no dispute that he was the absolute owner thereof. The adjoining plot No. 30A also belonged to Government, but that had not been leased out in favour of anybody.

Defendant No. 1 on the basic of his possession and construction made on plot No. 30A claimed possessory title in respect of that plot. Admittedly after obtaining necessary permission and approval of the authorities. Defendant No. 1, to meet some of his legal necessities, proposed to transfer plot No. 30 in favour of the Plaintiff and on receipt of a part consideration had entered into an agreement to transfer the lease hold plot No. 30 along with adjoining plot No. 30A, a Government land, which was in his possession but not leased out in his favour. The said agreement had been duly registered and it was agreed that as soon as the land appertaining to plot No. 30A was leased out to him by Government he would execute the deed transferring the same in favour of the Plaintiff for the consideration as agreed upon. In consonance with that agreement Defendant No. 1 had delivered possession of plot Nos.30 and 30A with the existing structures except the asbestos room standing on plot No. 30A and had agreed to deliver possession of that room subsequently on receipt of the balance consideration.

On 2-7-1976 Defendant No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 13,500.00 and had delivered vacant possession of the asbestos room to the Plaintiff, thereby delivering possession of the entire property, but could not execute any deed of transfer since permission had not been obtained from Government. After obtaining due permission from Government, Defendant No. 1 transferred his lease-hold plot No. 30 in favour of the Plaintiff by a registered instrument, but since plot No. 30A had not been leased out in his favour by Government, the same could not be transferred though possession thereof with the structure standing thereon was handed over to the Plaintiff.

While matter stood thus, on 7-3-1979 Defendant No. 1 approached the Plaintiff to allow him to stay in the asbestos standing on plot No. 30A for a temporary period for the treatment of his wife at Bhubaneswar. The Plaintiff having permitted him he stayed in that room. Subsequently, instead of vacating the said asbestos room. Defendant claimed his right over the same and in spite of several requests and legal notices he did not vacate the same. Consequently the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit.

4. Defendant No. 1, his wife and c