SADHU MEHER Vs. RAJKUMAR PATEL
LAWS(ORI)-1993-7-9
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 30,1993

SADHU MEHER Appellant
VERSUS
RAJKUMAR PATEL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RATTAN LAL MAHAJAN VS. TULSI RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2001-8-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is the plaintiff's appeal against the reversing decree of the learned. Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in a suit for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of Ac. O. 03 decimals of land, appertaining to plot No. 768 under Khunti No. 1 of village Dahits in the district of Sambalpur.
(2.)Undisputedly, the entire suit plot No., 768 measuring an area of Ac. 0.50 decimals belonged to one Akshaya Kumar Muchu who belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased Ac. 2.72 decimals of land from Akshaya Kumar Muchu by two registered sale deeds, one dated 12-1-1968 (Ext. 4) covering an area of Ac. 1.03 decimals and the other dated 13-2-1968 (Ext. 5) covering an area of Ac. 1.59 decimals including the entire suit plot No. 768. Akshaya Kumar Muchu, being, of Scheduled Tribe the sale deeds were not valid for want of necessary permission under S.22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') which was in force in the area at that time. Therefore, in order to regularise the transactions Akshaya Kumar Muchu applied for and obtained necessary permission under S. 22 of the Act from the competent authority, as per Ext. 3 and thereafter he executed a fresh registered sale deed on 19-1-1971 (Ext.2) covering the entire area under Exts. 4 and 5. After execution of Exts. 4 and 5 the plaintiff possessed the lands conveyed thereunder but the defendant having raised dispute with regard to the suit land, a proceeding under S. 145, Cr.P.C. was started and the same having ended in favour of the defendant, as per Ext. 7, the suit was filed for the aforestated reliefs.
(3.)The defendant denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. According to him, the plaintiff actually purchased Ac. 0.47 decimals out of the suit plot No. 768 and not the whole of it. He asserted that on 3-5-1963 Akshaya Kumar Muchu had orally sold the suit land to him for a consideration of Rs.80/- by delivery of possession and in evidence thereof he had executed a plain paper sale deed in his favour on that day (Ext. D). At any rate, on 13-2-1968 the plaintiff agreed to transfer the suit land to the defendant and for that purpose the plaintiff purchased the stamp papers, Ext. 8. It was, thus, claimed that the defendant was protected from eviction under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the T. P. Act').


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.