Advocates:
['M/S N C PATI', '', 'A K NANDA', 'S K SWAIN', 'M/S B H MOHANTY', '', 'R M MOHANTY', 'B DAS', 'R K NAYAK']

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

S.A. No.94 of 1989

From the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1988 and 7.1.1989

respectively passed by Sri N. Sengupta, learned District Judge,

Mayurbhanj, Baripada in T.A. No.31 of 1986 reversing the judgment

and decree dated 30.8.1986 and 6.9.1986 respectively passed by

Sri R.N. Bhuyan, learned Sub-Judge, Rairangpur in T.S. No.46 of

1982-I.

----------

Singrai Baskey and others

&&..&&&

Appellants

---versus4

Fagu Hembram and others

&&&&&&

Respondents

For Appellants

: Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

J U D G M E N T

P R E S E N T:

THE HON9BLE DR. JUSTICE A.K. RATH

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing :29.08.2019 ' Date of Judgment:29.08.2019

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiffs are appellants against the reversing judgment

in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the

alternative for recovery of possession, if they are dispossessed during

pendency of the suit.

02.

Plaintiffs in the suit have furnished two genealogies. Schedule

8A9 of the genealogy pertains to the family of the plaintiffs and the

proforma defendant nos.7 to 14, whereas schedule 8A-19, genealogy

pertains to the family of defendant nos.1 to 6. Both the genealogies are

furnished hereunder.

2

Schedule 8A9

Late Bhunda Majhi

Kusunu

Kasrai

Fagu (Pro.D.-9)

Jujhar

Tuna

Gurucharan Maisa Balia Budha Bhunda

(Pro.D-7) (Pro.D-9)

(Prof.D-10) (Prof.D-11) (Prof.D-12) (Prof.D-13) (Prof.D-14)

Muna

Singrai Sugda

Kusunu

(P-1)

(P-2)

(P-3)

(P-4)

Schedule 8A-19

Late Mara Majhi

Fagu

Budhurai

Lakhan Mochiram

Raghunath

Budhurai

Mochiram (D-6)

(D-2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5)

The suit property relates to 1927 settlement ROR khata

no.23, plot no.285, admeasuring 10 gunths 8 biswas and 4 gandas of

village Natuar in the district of Mayurbhanj. The case of the plaintiffs is

that their common ancestor, Bhunda Majhi, was the owner of the suit land.

After death of Bhunda, there was a partition between his sons. In the said

partition, the suit property fell to the share of their father, Kasrai. Their

father was in possession of the suit property. After father9s death, they are

in possession of the suit property. In the year 1981, the defendant nos.2

to 6 initiated a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding,

order was passed directing the R.I. to cut the standing crops. The next

year also a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. was initiated. In the said

proceeding, the defendant nos.1 to 6 claimed that they are in possession

of the suit property. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit

seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

03.

The defendant nos.1 to 6 filed a written statement pleading

inter alia that Bhunda Majhi was not the owner of the suit land. In 1906

ROR, the name of Mara Majhi, common ancestor of the defendants, was

3

recorded as the owner of the suit property under khata no.17, plot

no.359/627. They are in possession. In 1927 settlement, the property was

wrongly recorded in the name of Bhunda Majhi. Taking advantage of the

wrong recording, the plaintiffs disturbed in their possession, for which,

proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. was initiated. The said proceeding

ended in their favour. There was a partition in their family. In the said

partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendant no.4.

04.

On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court

struck eight issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary.

Learned trial court came to hold that plot no.359/627 of 1906 settlement

stood recorded in the name of Mara Majhi, common ancestor of the

defendants. The said