JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Defendant No. 1 is the appellant before this Court against a confirming judgment. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the sit for declaration of title and possession, correction of record of rights as well as recovery of possession in the event they found to have been dispossessed and for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that Late Bhagaban Naik is the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and husband of the plaintiff No. 3. He had purchased the scheduled property from one Bhanja Bhoi under a registered sale deed dtd. 26.10.1945. After purchase of the said land the said Bhanja Bhoi continued to remain in possession over the same and died in the year 1953. At that time plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors and plaintiff No. 3 was a Paradanasini lady and could not take proper steps for recording the said land in their names in the settlement operation. Ac¬cordingly, a prayer is made for correction of the record of rights. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 who was residing at Rourkela and plaintiff No. 2 who had completed his studies in 1978 wanted to construct a building over the suit land for business purpose and when they visited the suit land and measured it, it was found that defendant No.1 had encroached a portion of the suit land. Upon further enquiry they found that the suit plot had been divided into plots in the hal settlement and the hal plot No. 3867 measuring 0.04 decs. had been recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and the other hal plot had been recorded in their name as well as proforma defend¬ant Nos. 2 and 3. Since the defendant No. 1 was trying to con¬struct a building over the same, the suit had to be filed in the aforesaid reliefs.

3. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 4, the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to title and posses¬sion over the suit plot was denied. The aforesaid two defendants also denied the sale of the suit land by Bhanja Bhoi in favour of Bhagaban Naik. According to them even if such a sale deed is there, the possession had not been delivered to Bhagaban Naik and after Bhuja Bhoi his son Maga was in cultivating possession of the suit land till 1967 whereafter Maga sold the suit property to defendant No. 4. Thereafter, defendant No. 4 remained in posses¬sion of the suit land till 1968 and sold the same to defendant No. 1 after due permission from the S.D.O. That after purchasing the suit property in the year 1968 he started construction of a building over the suit land in the same year and has also con¬structed a room over the sit land in the year 1969 and started a tailoring shop.

4. On the basis of the such pleadings, the trial Court framed 10 issued and decreed the suit. While answering the issue No. 4 the trial Court held that the suit plot as mentioned in the record of rights of 1927 is the same plot as indicated in the village map of 1927 settlement. While answering issue Nos. 5,6 and 7, the trial Court held that plaintiffs had acquired title and possession over the suit land under sale deed Ext.1 and the vendors of defendant No. 4 as well as Maga and Panu had not ac¬quired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and as such defendant No. 4 had no title over the property. The trial Court also found possession of the plaintiffs and allowed the prayer for permanent injunction. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant No. 1 filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar and the said appeal having been dismissed, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

5. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following ground :

“Whether the suit is barred under Section 51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.”

Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also did not raise any other question of law for adjudication of this Court.

6. According to Shri Mishra there was a consolidation