The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's dispossession during the pendency of the suit, leading to the decree for permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants in this Second Appeal, have challenged the confirming judgments of the learned courts below decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction and directing recovery of possession.

2. The present respondent No.1 as plaintiff filed T.S. No.447 of 2000 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for a decree for permanent injunction by restraining the defendants 1 and 2 (present appellants) perpetually from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, which also includes the building. It was, inter alia, pleaded in the plaint that the defendant No.4, who is the present respondent No.3, got the suit land from the General Administration Department of the Government of Odisha by the registered lease deed dated 28.03.1984 (Ext.1) and thereafter, he constructed a building over the suit land and applying for conversion of the suit land to “free hold”, the same was allowed by the G.A. Department and a deed of conveyance was executed in his favour vide Ext.5. Thereafter, the said defendant No.4, through his Power of Attorney – defendant No.5, executed a registered sale deed – Ext.6 on 29.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon, continued to possess the suit land along with the house and mutated his name in the Record of Rights vide Ext.7 and paid rent obtaining rent receipts Exts.8 & 8(a). He also got his building assessed to municipal tax and paid municipal tax as per the receipt Ext.9. But the defendants 1 and 2, who have no manner of right, title and interest and possession claiming that the defendant No.1 is a prospective purchaser, created disturbance in the possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the building of the plaintiff. The defendant No.4 vide Ext.2 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.2, which the defendant No.4 subsequently cancelled by a registered deed of cancellation vide Ext.3 and issued notice by registered post, of the said cancellation vide Ext.4 to the defendant No.2. Under the said Power of Attorney – Ext.2, possession was never handed over to the defendant No.2 by the defendant No.4. The plaintiff had let out the building existing on the suit land to different tenants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from creating any disturbance in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The defendant No.4, the original lessee of the suit land with the building and the defendant No.5, who was a Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.4, under a registered Power of Attorney, filed a written statement supporting the plaintiff’s case and admitted that the defendant No.4 has sold the suit property to the plaintiff.

4. The defendants 1 and 2, i.e., the present appellants filed a joint written statement denying the plaint averments and claimed that the defendant No.4 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.2 vide Ext.2 and the defendant No.2 had no knowledge with regard to cancellation of the same under Ext.3 and the defendant No.1 has got an agreement to sell in her favour for purchase of the suit land at a cost of Rs.2,35,000/-and paid the entire consideration amount, but the defendant No.4, instead of executing and registering the sale deed in her favour, delayed the matter and sold the suit land to the plaintiff.

5. It may be mentioned here that the defendant No.2 was deleted from the case record.

6. On the above pleadings, the learned trial court framed two issues, which are as follows:-

I. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant with respect to the suit land and the house ?

Thereafter, the parties led evidence. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff along with the plaint had filed Misc. Cas