IMPORTANT POINT
In property disputes where neither party has a valid title, the person in prior possession is entitled to recover possession, and a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable even if the title is disputed.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

 This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The respondent of this Second Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 and she was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.37 of 1999.

The appellants of this Second Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 and they were the respondents before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.37 of 1999.

3. The suit of the plaintiff before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff (who is the respondent in this Second Appeal) before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 was that, she (plaintiff) purchased total 23 x 74 cubits land from her two vendors i.e. Juddhistira Sahu and Dibakar Subudhi on dated 21.12.1972 through two registered sale deeds. As the plaintiff was staying with her husband in the service place of her husband, for which, she (plaintiff) engaged her uncle, namely, Bidhan Nayak to look after her purchased properties including the suit site, to which, she had purchased on 21.12.1972 through two registered sale deeds from Juddhistira Sahu and Dibakar Subudhi. In order to construct a building upon her said purchased properties in the year 1981, she (plaintiff) collected building materials and engaged defendant No.1 to watch her purchased properties on payment of Rs.60/- per month and constructed a thatched house on the northern portion of her purchased properties, to which portion, she (plaintiff) had purchased from Juddhistira Sahu. Accordingly, by staying in the said thatched house on the suit land i.e. on the suit site, the defendant No.1 was looking after the construction works of the building of the plaintiff on the rest portions of the purchased land of the plaintiff. But, since the year 1988, the defendant No.2 started staying with the defendant No.1 in the suit site as per the permission of plaintiff and her husband. In the year 1990 i.e. on 12.08.1990, the plaintiff and her husband told the defendants to vacate the suit house, because, the suit house was required for their own use. Though, the defendants were agreed initially for vacation of the suit house, but on dated 14.01.1991, the defendants refused to vacate the same, for which, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 praying for declaration of her title over the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the suit house from the plaintiff along with other reliefs, to which, she (plaintiff) is entitled for.

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 filed by the plaintiff, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint by taking their stands inter alia therein that, she (plaintiff) has never taken the possession of the suit site at any point of time and she (plaintiff) has never engaged defendant No.1 to watch the suit site for any purpose.

The specific case/plea of the defendants in their joint written statement was that, the defendant No.2 had purchased the suit site from his vendors, namely, A. Kambara Achari and Magata Das through two separate sale deeds dated 20.08.1980 and 19.03.1981 respectively. The vendors of the defendant No.2 were the owners over the suit properties by perfecting their title on the same through adverse possession. When the owners of the suit properties i.e. the above two vendors of the defendant No.2 sold the suit properties to the defendant No.2, then the defendant No.2 has become the owner over the suit properties.

After purchasing the suit site from A. Kambara Achari and Magata Das, through the above two sale deeds dated 20.08.1980 and 19.03.1981 respectively, the defendant No.2 had constructed a thatched