The validity of a sale deed must be upheld unless compelling evidence proves otherwise; adverse possession can extinguish previous ownership rights if established.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The appellant in these appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the common judgment dated 08.11.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak followed by decrees in S.J. Appeal Nos.80 and 81 of 1993.

The respondent, as the plaintiff, had filed Title Suit No.318 of 1988 in the court of learned Munsif, Balasore (as it was then) and Title Suit No.137 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Balasore (as then was). Both the suits being tried analogously in the court of learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, those have been disposed of by common judgment dated 07.10.1993 followed by decrees.

Title Suit No.318 of 1988 re-numbered as Title Suit No.252 of 1990 after its transfer to the Court of Sub-Ordinate Judge stood decreed confirming the possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit land described under schedule-'Ka' of the plaint therein and the appellant-defendant was restrained from interfering with the same.

The other title suit, i.e, Title Suit No.137 of 1988 was decreed in part declaring the plaintiff-respondent's right, title and interest over the land described in schedule-'Kha' of the plaint therein, restraining the appellant-defendant from changing its nature and character and directing him to deliver the possession of the same to the respondent-plaintiff within a time frame and on failure for recovery through process of court by removing the standing house and structure over the land.

The defendant thus having suffered from the above judgment and decrees and aggrieved by the same filed two appeals under section 96 of the Code, i.e., S.J Appeal No.80 of 1993 and S.J. Appeal No.81 of 1993 in challenging the judgment and decrees passed in the above noted suits. Those appeals have also been dismissed. The judgment and decrees passed by the trial court thus have been confirmed.

Both these appeals before this Court having arisen out of common judgment followed by decrees passed by the lower appellate court as well as the trial court; accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, those have been heard together for their disposal by this common judgment.

2. For the purpose of convenience and clarity; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original suit, namely, the appellant as the defendant whereas the respondent as the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was the original owner of the schedule-'Ka' property as per the description given in the plaint of T.S. No.137 of 1988 in total measuring Ac.0.70 decimals which he had inherited. He on 22.02.1955 sold the said land in schedule-'Ka' by a registered sale deed. It is stated that after execution of the said sale deed and its registration, the plaintiff was put in possession over the suit land. One part of the land was of Tala kisam which the plaintiff after purchase began to cultivate as it was being earlier so done by the defendant and also enjoyed the benefits from the small pond over it. It is further stated that in course of time, she made a part of it fit for homestead and started growing vegetables.

Further case of the plaintiff is that when the Majo