The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the Defendant's claim over the suit land based on the sale deed and the Plaintiff's right to possess the suit land.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2000 & 21.06.2000 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, in Title Appeal No.18 of 1998.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Respondent, being the unsuccessful Plaintiff under section 96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sambalpur in Title Suit No.67 of 1996 have been set aside and the suit filed by the Respondent, as the Plaintiff, against the Appellants arraigning them as the Defendants has been decreed.

It may be stated here that during pendency of the First Appeal, the present Respondent having died, his legal representatives have come on record and are pursuing this Appeal.

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

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land, which is a Basti plot, was in possession of his father, namely, Krupa Pattanaik during his life time. On his death, the Plaintiff continued to possess the same. It is stated that the Plaintiff and his father have thus been in possession of the suit land over a century. The suit land was not recorded in his name nor in the name of the father of the Plaintiff as it was a Basti land belonging to the State. It is asserted that the State Authorities, despite having knowledge of such constructive possession of the suit land since the time of his father, had never disturbed the same and there has been no interference from that side at any given point of time. It is stated that the Respondent, being a co-villager, on a fine morning, claimed to have purchased the suit land from one Nilabati Bebarta by a registered sale deed and on the basis of that, he attempted to disturb the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff and his family members. In view of that, the suit came to be filed.

4. The Defendant, in his written statement, asserted to be the owner in possession of the suit land. It is stated that they have purchased the suit land from Nilabati, daughter of Baji Patanaik. He has entered into the possession of the same being so delivered by the vendor and has been continuing to do so.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed as many as four issues. Coming to answer those issues, the Trial Court found that the suit land has been purchased by the Defendant by registered sale deed (Ext.A) and accordingly, it held that the Defendant has the right to possess the suit land which he has been possessing since 21.04.1972, i.e., from the date of purchase. Above finding being rendered on the basis of the evidence available on record, the Trial Court finally dismissed the suit.

The Plaintiff, being thus non-suited, having carried the First Appeal has been unsuccessful and, therefore, the Defendant, who has suffered from the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, has filed the present Second Appeal.

6. This Appeal has been admitted on 24.10.2000 to answer the substantial questions of law, as indicated in Ground No.1 to 4 of the Memorandum of Appeal, which read as under :-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff has got any right to question the execution of Ext.A?

(2) Whether the learned lower appellate court committed gross illegality in holding that due execution has not been proved without keeping in mind that the execution of the deed was as admitted fact by both the P.Ws and DWs and the said document was marked without objection in as much as the Plaintiff’s case was that Nilabati had no interest in the suit land?;

(3) Whether in view of the evidence of plaintiff that the suit properties was the ancestral properties of the plaintiff as well as Nilabati’s father, the learned Court below should have come to a positive finding that the