Judgment

R. DASH, J.

This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1986 and 10.11.1986, respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj in Title Appeal No.8 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1982 and 15.03.1982, respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Baripada in T.S. No.63 of 1978-I.

2. The original Appellant-Rama Chandra Patra is the plaintiff. His suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land was decreed by the learned trial court. Upon his death during pendency of the Second Appeal, his L.Rs. have been substituted and arrayed as Appellant Nos.1 to 6. Defendant No.2 is the Deity-Raghunath Jew represented by Trustee, the S.D.O., Baripada. In the first appeal preferred by defendant No.2, who is Respondent No.1 in this Second Appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed accepting the Deity’s stand that the Deity acquired title in the suit property by way of adverse possession. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are plaintiff’s brother and sister, respectively. They were arrayed as proforma defendants. The original Respondent No.4, late Bhaskar Behera, is D-1 in the suit, who claims to be a Sanja tenant under the Deity (D-2). Upon his death during the pendency of the Second Appeal, his legal heirs have been substituted as Respondent No.4(a) to 4(d).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their respective nomenclature as per the cause-title of the plaint. The plaint schedule ‘B’ contains the description of suit land measuring A1.94 decs. It stands recorded in the name of Aparti Behera under Sabik Khata No.2/1/1 of Mouza-Majanadihi. After his death the record was mutated in the name of her widow-Niasi Bewa vide order passed in M.C. Case No.184/1940-41. Aparti and Niasi died issueless. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Niasi the branch of Aparti became extinct and plaintiff’s father being Aparti’s brother’s son, the suit land reverted back to plaintiff’s father. After the death of Niasi, plaintiff’s father remained in possession of the suit land. After his death, the plaintiff having entered into an amicable settlement with his brother and sister (D-3 and D-4), remained in exclusive possession of the suit land in his own right. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he became the exclusive owner of the suit land. When matter stood thus, D-1 during Rent Camp of the current settlement putforth a false claim before the settlement authority that the suit land belongs to the Deity-Bhagabat Gosain and D-1 being the Marfatdar of the Deity has been in cultivating possession of the suit land on payment of Sanja. At his behest, the Khata of the suit land was ordered to be corrected. Plaintiff challenged that order in appeal. In the appeal D-1 took altogether a different stand. This time, he claimed that the suit property was of Deity-Raghunath Jew (D-2) and being Debottar land it has been recorded in the name of D-2 in one O.E.A. proceeding. This plea was accepted without any probe. Order dated 14.11.1977 was passed by the Settlement Officer to record the land in the name of the Deity. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was neither Debottar nor Lakhraj land. So, its settlement, if any, with the Deity (D-2) in the O.E.A. proceeding is illegal. Never was the suit land settled with the Deity in any O.E.A. proceeding. Taking advantage of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, it is claimed, D-1 caused a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. initiated and started interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. Hence, the suit.

4. D-1 and D-2 have filed separate W.S. D-1 denies the relationship between Aparti and Niasi on one hand and the plaintiff on the other. D-1 claims the suit land to be the property of D-2 and he himself to be a Sanja tenant. He claims that he looks after as well as performs Seba Puja of ‘Bhagabat Gosain’, a village Deity having ASTHAN on a portion of the suit land. Pri