JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divi¬sion), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 382 of 1998.

2. Respondent as plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration of his title, confirmation of his possession over the suit land, for issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the same and also for direction to the defendants to declare that the record of the suit land prepared by the settlement authorities is wrong and illegal and to prepare the record of rights for the suit land in his name and to disburse that record of rights to him.

3. The plaintiff-respondent’s case in brief was that late Choudhury Chakradhar Mohapatra, the Ex-Zamindar of Gadakana area was in occupation of Ac. 64.65 decimals of Anabadi land including the suit land. The said Zamindar permanently leased out the suit land measuring Ac. 1.00 in favour of the respondent’s father by means of a HATAPATTA on 20.05.1941 for the purpose of cultiva¬tion. The father of the respondent thereafter constructed a thatched house on the suit land and cultivated the land by grow¬ing paddy and other crops and paid rent to the Zamindar for this land. Subsequently after abolition of Zamindari the father of the respondent continued his possession over the suit land and paid rent for that land to the State Government and accordingly, in settlement record he was recorded as a tenant in possession of the suit land since 1941. In course of time, the father of the respondent constructed two rooms on the suit land and the Bhuba¬neswar Municipal Corporation also realized holding tax from him for these houses. Electoral roll was also prepared showing him as a resident of that place. In 1970 settlement operation the settle¬ment authorities found the father of the respondent in peaceful possession of the suit land and prepared the draft settlement record accordingly. At this juncture, father of the respondent died in 1975. The respondent being Adivasi and illiterate man was unaware of the settlement proceeding and did not attend the same, though he continued possession over the suit land and house. When the matter stood thus, in 1998 some persons claiming to be the employees of the appellants asked the respondent to vacate the suit land where after the respondent enquired and came to know that the settlement authorities have prepared the R.O.R. of the suit land in the name of the State Government deleting the note of possession of the father of the respondent over the same. The employees of the appellants again visited the suit property on 22.7.1998 to demolish the suit house and evict the respondent. So, finding no other alternative, the respondent filed the suit seeking the afore-mentioned reliefs.

4. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2, as defendants filed sepa¬rate written statement denying the claim and allegation of the respondent. Appellant No. 1 as defendant No. 1 pleaded that Plot No. 1726 having an area of Ac. 64.65 decimals was Jhati jungle and recorded under Anabadi Khata in favour of the State Govern¬ment and during 1973-74 settlement also this land was recorded in the name of the State under Rakshit Khata No. 1076, Plot No. 4706. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the respondent’s father was never in occupation of the suit land since 1941, but the respond¬ent has recently occupied a portion of the said plot measuring Ac. 0.682 decimals and has illegally constructed the small thatched house and asbestos houses and has let those house to outsiders. The appellant No. 1 thus pleaded that neither the respondent nor his father has acquired any title over the suit land. Appellant No. 1 also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, non-joinder of necessary par¬ties as well as non-service of proper notice under Sec. 80 of the C.P.C.

5. The appellant No. 2 as defendant No. 2 filed similar written statement with a further pleading tha