The appellant has impugned the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court.
The land measured 33 decimals in plot No.824.
The Second Appeal appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed.
In the Mukherjee Settlement which took place prior to 1972 the plot in question was recorded in Khata No.12 of Mouza Sundargarh in the names of Kunu and Benudhar, sons of Sanatan Kalo and Kanhei and Purna, sons of the third son of Sanatan Kalo namely, Somnath.
It is number disputed that the defendant is number a tribal and he obtained the property in question from a tribal with the prior permission of the companypetent authority under the relevant Regulation namely, Orissa Regulation No.2 of 1956.
It may here be numbericed that Sanatan Kalo was the member of a scheduled tribe and the appellant was also a member of a scheduled tribe.
The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the lands from Sadasiv, Dhaneswar and Binod, sons of Benudhar by registered sale deed dated 12th January, 1972.
This companyresponds to Hal Plot No.61 measuring as 0.270 decimals in Khata No.371 of the Hal Settlement, which we are told took place after 1972.
However, in the year 1976 the defendant claims to have purchased the land from Raghunath, one of the sons of Kunu under a registered sale deed dated 4th February, 1976.
After obtaining the sale deed the defendant respondent is alleged to have forcibly evicted the appellant from the plot in question.
The third son namely, Somnath had two sons namely, Kanhei and Purna.
In the aforesaid settlement, the land in question was recorded jointly in the names of the sons of Kunu, Benudhar and Somnath.
The plaintiff is the appellant whose suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No.2 of 1977 by judgment and decree of 27th September, 1979.
The High Court in second appeal found that the question as to whether the land in question fell to the share of Kunu or Benudhar, the sons of original holder Sanstan Kalo being a pure question of fact, there was numberreason for the High Court to set aside this finding of fact which was based on evidence on record.
According to the appellant, after the execution of the sale deed he came in possession of the suit plot and the same was fenced by him and he companytinued in enjoyment of the said plot.
This led the appellant to file a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of his title.
Kunu had three sons namely, Ratnakar, Raghunath and Pitambar, while Benudhar also had three sons namely, Sadasiv, Dhaneswar and Binod.
The parties led evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge who decreed the suit.
The case of the appellant is that one Sanatan Kalo of Mouza Sundargarh had three sons namely, Kunu, Benudhar and Somnath.
This appeal has been preferred by special leave.
P.Singh,J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated October 22, 1992, in Second Appeal No.188 of 1981.
