Title presumption under recorded ownership persists unless rebutted by strong evidence; contradictory claims over property rights invalidate defendants’ assertion of adverse possession.

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is an appeal filed against a confirming judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh in RFA No. 12 of 2004 on 30.07.2005 followed by decree whereby the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kantamal on 25.09.2004 in T.S. No. 06 of 2002 was confirmed. The plaintiff of the above suit is the appellant herein.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the Court below.

3. The aforementioned suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title over the suit land and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit land appertaining to Hal plot No. 908 under Khata No. 224 situate in village Digi measuring Ac. 0.04 decimals, is his ancestral property and was partitioned among the co-sharers after death of his father, Daitari Karna. He claims to have been allotted an area measuring Ac. 11.25 decimals in the family partition. There is a dilapidated house over the suit land in which the original defendant No.1 (Sasi Muduli) and defendant No.2 remained in permissive possession after making necessary repairs. This was on 18.04.1986. Defendant No.1 had agreed to vacate the house whenever the plaintiff wanted. On 11.05.1996, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit house as he wanted to make construction for his own accommodation. Since the defendants did not vacate the suit house, he filed the suit in question.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia stating that the suit land is a portion of Sabik Khata No. 58 corresponding to Plot Nos. 716 and 717 being recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiff namely, Daitari Karna. It is claimed that about 40 years ago, said Daitari Karna had sold the entire land to the husband of defendant No.1 namely, D.Muduli for a consideration of Rs. 90/-by way of oral sale and since then defendant No.1 and her husband have been possessing the suit land and constructed residential house thereon. Such possession is to the knowledge of the plaintiff and other villagers. The defendants have also been paying rent to Daitari Karna during his lifetime and after him, through Padma Charan Karna, the elder brother of the plaintiff. The suit land was sold in the year 1957 and since then the defendants are in continuous and peaceful possession. They have thus perfected their right title and interest over the suit land because of such long standing possession. It is alleged that the plaintiff by colluding with the settlement officials managed to get the suit land recorded in his name in the ROR. The plaintiff’s claim of acquisition of the suit land through family partition was specifically denied.

5. On the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues;

I) Whether the suit is maintainable?

II) Whether the suit is under valued?

III) Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to bring the suit against the defendants?

IV) Has the plaintiff any right, title and interest over the suit land?

V) Whether the defendants have perfected their right, title & interest over the suit land by way of their long standing possession?

VI) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

6. Issue No.4 being the main issue was taken up for consideration at the outset. The trial Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence found that the Hal ROR (Ext.1) stands recorded in the name of plaintiff but the Sabik ROR (Ext. B) of the year 1963 is recorded in the name of all the brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not adduce any cogent evidence of partition between him and his brothers. Since the ROR does no