Advocates:
['M/S P PALIT', '', 'M P MOHAPATRA', 'A K PATTNAIK', 'D MOHANTA', 'S K SANGANARIA', 'S PATTNAIK', 'D P DHALSAMANTA', 'M/S P K MISRA', '', 'B SAHOO', 'A K NANDA', 'S K SWAIN', 'R N DASH']

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

S.A. No.289 of 1989

In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1989 and

5.5.1989 respectively passed by Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in

Title Appeal No. 37 of 20 of 1984/85.

………

Ram Harek Pasi

::::

Appellant.

-:: VERSUS ::-

Ram Harek Keut

::::

Respondent.

Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement

(virtual/physical) mode.

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

For Appellant

…

M/s. P. Palit, M.P. Mohapatra, A.K.

Pattnaik, D.Mohanta, S.K.

Sanganaria, S. Pattnaik & D.P.

Dhalsamanta, Advocates

For Respondent

…

M/s. P.K. Misra, B. Sahoo, A.K.

Nanda, S.K. Sain & R. N. Dash,

Advocates

CORAM :

MR. JUSTICE D. DASH

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

Date of Hearing: 17.12.2021 & Date of Judgment: 23 .12.2021

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

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100 of

the Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the

judgment and decree dated 22.04.1989 and 5.5.1989 respectively passed

by Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in Title Appeal No. 37 of 20 of

1984/85.

By the said judgment and decree, the Appeal filed under section 96

of the Code by the Respondent-Defendant has been allowed. The First

{{ 2 }}

Appellate Court has thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by

learned Munsif, Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 57 of 1982. The suit filed

the Appellant-Plaintiff has accordingly been dismissed.

2.

For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring

in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been

arraigned in the Suit.

3.

The Plaintiff’s case is that since the year 1962, having constructed

four rooms on a piece of Govt. land as shown in the map appended to the

plaint, he possessed the same. The Defendant has remained as a tenant in

respect of one of those four rooms on payment of monthly rent of Rs.15/-.

The rent being paid till the month of August, 1979, thereafter the

Defendant defaulted in payment of rent. So the Plaintiff has to file the suit

for declaration of his possessory title over the suit land, eviction of the

Defendant from the suit room and for realization of arrear rent.

4.

The Defendant coming into contest has stated that the Plaintiff was

never in possession of the suit land and the rooms. He claims to be in

possession of 6 decimals of land out of that land under Hamid Settlement

plot No. 468. It is his case that he has constructed two rooms over there

since the year 1960.

5.

On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed four issues.

Answering the issue no. 1 as to the claim of the Plaintiff of having

possessory title over the suit land and the construction put up by him, on

evaluation of evidence; answer had been returned in favour of the

Plaintiff that he has established his case of possessory title over the suit

land. Next answering issue no.2 as regards one room taken by the

Defendant from the Plaintiff, the Trial Court has also answered it against

the Plaintiff in holding that the Plaintiff has not proved that the Defendant

{{ 3 }}

is in occupation of the suit room as a tenant under the Plaintff.

Accordingly, the suit had been decreed declaring the possessory title of

the Plaintiff over the suit in saying that the Defendant is liable to be

evicted therefrom while the claim as to rent has been rejected.

6.

The Defendant being the aggrieved by the result in the suit

standing decreed in favour of the Plaintiff had filed the Appeal. The

Lower Appellate Court on examination of evidence at its level has come

to conclude that the P