Exclusive rights of ownership established through Bhogra Conversion Proceeding cannot be undermined by contradictory claims of adverse possession and inheritance by defendants.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

The appellants of this 2nd appeal were the defendants in the suit vide T.S. No.7 of 1983 and were the appellants in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.8 of 1985.

2. The predecessors of the respondents of this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Rama Chandra Kudei was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide T.S. No.7 of 1983 and he was the respondent in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.8 of 1985.

The suit of the plaintiff Rama Chandra Kudei vide T.S. No.7 of 1983 was a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in alternative, recovery of possession, if, he (plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that, the suit properties were originally Bhogra lands. He (plaintiff) was the Gountia of village Jampali, in which the suit properties situate.

After abolition of Gountia system, the suit properties were settled in his name exclusively through Bhogra Conversion Proceeding by the appropriate authority. On the basis of such settlement, the suit properties were recorded in his name (in the name of plaintiff) in the 4^th settlement. Accordingly, he (plaintiff) was / is the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties.

But, surprisingly, he came to know that, the defendant no.1 has managed to record the suit properties in his name as per an order dated 20.07.1982 of the Tahasildar through Mutation Case No.264 of 1982 behind his back without serving any notice on him. He (plaintiff) came to know that, the defendant no.1 had filed an application on dated 13.04.1982 for mutation of the suit properties into his name by stating falsely that, the suit properties had fallen into the share of his father as per mutual partition of their all joint family properties including the suit properties. In addition to that, he(defendant no.1) had stated falsely in his application for mutation that, the father of the plaintiff had become the exclusive owner over the suit properties on the basis of an unregistered dead executed by the plaintiff along with his other co-sharers on dated 06.05.1955 acknowledging the ownership of his father Bansi Kudei over the suit properties. But, in fact, neither there was any partition nor there was execution of any so-called unregistered deed on 06.05.1955. When, the plaintiff came to know that, the defendants are trying to grab the suit properties by creating the aforesaid illegal documents, for which, he (plaintiff) approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.7 of 1983 against the defendants praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties and also for confirmation of his possession thereon, in alternative, for recovery of the possession of the suit properties from the defendants, if, he (plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.

4. The defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing his written statement taking his stands inter alia therein that, the suit properties were originally belonged to one Basu, who was the original Gountia of suit village Jampali. That Basu died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Madan, Trilochan, Abhi and Bansi. After the death of Basu, his four sons, i.e., Madan, Trilochan, Abhi and Bansi distributed their all joint properties including the suit properties among them through an amicable partition. As per such amicable partition between them, the suit properties had fallen into the share of Bansi (father of the defendant no.1).

After the death of the original Go