A party's claim to land title cannot be dismissed merely based on the time of filing under statutory provisions, which must account for the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This Second Appeal, instituted under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the reversal Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak in RFA No. 71 of 2003, which arose from the Judgment and Decree rendered in Title Suit No. 57 of 1991 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore. For the sake of clarity and consistency, the parties shall continue to be referred to as ‘Plaintiff’ and ‘Defendant’, as they were arrayed in the original suit.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is that the Plaintiff, Khetra Mohan Rout (original Respondent No. 1), instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title over the ‘Ga’ schedule land in his favour, along with a further declaration that the preparation of the settlement khatian and map in respect thereof is illegal and erroneous. The suit land, described as ‘Ga’ schedule land and situated in Mauza Sovarampur, is delineated as follows:

According to the Plaintiff, the ‘Ka’ schedule land appertaining to Current Settlement Khata No. 28 stood recorded in the names of Kanduru Rout and Radhu Rout, both sons of Kanhu Charan Rout, each having an equal share. The Plaintiff is the son of Radhu Rout. Kanduru Rout, the Plaintiff’s uncle, died in 1942 leaving behind his wife, Ashamani, and two daughters, Rukmani and Purnima. After Kanduru’s death, his widow and daughters remained under the care and protection of the Plaintiff’s father. Both daughters were subsequently married and began residing in the houses of their respective in-laws. In 1954, Radhu Rout, father of the Plaintiff, passed away; his wife had predeceased him. Thereafter, the Plaintiff came to possess both the lands of his father and his uncle. On 21.02.1974, Ashamani, widow of Kanduru, executed a registered gift deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Under the said deed, the Plaintiff received eight annas share out of Ac. 0.42 dec. of Current Settlement Khata No. 28, as well as Ac. 0.02 dec. from the donor’s purchased land under Current Settlement Plot No. 169, thereby receiving a total of Ac. 0.23 dec. from Khata No. 28. Apart from the said khata, the Plaintiff also received other lands not connected with the suit land.

The Plaintiff asserts that, having continued in possession of the lands gifted by his aunt, he became a six-annas owner, and the Major Settlement record accordingly reflected his name. The cause of action arose when the Plaintiff discovered that, in the Major Settlement Khatian, the ‘Ga’ schedule land had been wrongly amalgamated into the khata of the original Defendant No. 1, Baishnab Das, and original Defendant No. 2, Hiramani Singh @ Das, wife of Baishnab Das. As Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly threatened to dispossess him by taking advantage of the erroneous Major Settlement record-of-rights, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit. The contesting Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the Plaintiff was recorded only in respect of the lands actually in his possession, whereas they were in possession of the suit land, and the record-of-rights correctly reflected such possession. They further stated that their homestead land, existing since the time of their forefathers, adjoins the Plaintiff’s homestead, and fo