Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It may be stated at this stage that this Defendant No. 5 after having filed the written statement has however not contested the suit nor the Appeal.

{{ 6 }}

6. The Trial Court faced with pleadings as above has framed as many as seven issues.

Taking up the crucial issues i.e. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 relating to the right, title, interest and possession of the suit land of the Plaintiffs; as regards recording of the suit land in the MS ROR etc. has finally answered those in favour of the Plaintiffs holding the Plaintiffs to be having the right, title, interest and possession of the suit land and recording of the suit land in the MS ROR as such has been found to be erroneous. Practically, these findings have led the Trial Court to decree the suit.

9. Coming to address of the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant, it is seen that the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of the possession stating further that despite such erroneous recording of the suit land in the Major Settlement operation, they have been in possession of the suit land, further saying erroneous recording as to have been detected shortly filed in the suit.

{{ 8 }} The certified copy of the C.S. RoR published in the year 1927 reveals that the land under khata No. 74 stood recorded in the name of one Nagar Jena are that khata was having the land under plot No. 688 measuring an area Ac.0.08 dec. Ext.2 the certified copy of the MS RoR reflects that khata No. 207 standing recorded in the name of Bhabagrahi and Danu Jena son of Nagar Jena contains the land under plot No. 1375 measuring an area Ac.0.03 dec. with noted status as 'Pokhari'. MS khata No. 230 stands recorded in the name of Murali Jena contains the land under plot No. 1326 measuring Ac.0.03 dec. as homestead with house standing over there. The other MS Record of Right pertaining to khata No. 78 is in the name of Chupuri Jena having the land under plot No. 1319 as 'Gharabari'. Fact remains that those MS RoR under khata No. 230 and 78 Ext. (2/A and 2/B) have not been challenged till the suit.

{{ 9 }} suited on that ground, on the face of the settled law that the entry in the Record of Right does neither create title in favour of someone who in fact does not have it nor does extinguish title of the true owner in respect of the suit land. So, in that view of the matter when the title holder continues to remain in possession of the property despite said wrong recording, his non-filing of the suit within a period of three years from the date of publication of the said erroneous ROR cannot extinguish his right, title and interest over the property in question and as such he does not become disentitled to continue to be in possession over the suit land.