JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K.RATH, J.

1. This is a defendants’ appeal against confirming judgment.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed O.S.No.100 of 82-I in the court of the learned Additional Munsif, Balasore for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Basanta Kumar Nanda was the recorded owner of the suit land. The suit land fell to the share of Basanta Kumar Nanda in a partition. The land was settled in his name by the O.E.A. Collector. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from him by means of two registered sale deeds dated 1.2.82 and 4.3.82 respectively. On 20.6.82 the defendants threatened to encroach upon the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed written statement stating inter alia that the suit for permanent injunction without any consequential relief is not maintainable. The suit properties as described in lot no.2 of ‘Ka’ schedule are unspecific. In consolidation operation, the properties had been recorded in favour of the respective parties. The suit properties were recorded in the name of Budhi Jagulai Thakurani in the year 1930 settlement operation. In M.S. the same had been recorded in the names of Purastam and others under “Bebondabasti” status. The suit is not maintainable in absence of the persons recorded in the M.S. R.O.R. Partition of the properties between Basanta Kumar Nanda and his co-sharers is false. The ‘ka’ schedule property was not allotted to Basanta Kumar Nanda. They denied settlement of the suit land in O.E.A. proceeding in favour of Basanta Kumar Nanda. In Sabak Settlement the suit land was recorded as Puruna Padia. Khetra Bal, father of defendant no.1 and defendant no.8 had obtained patta on 18.1.43 in respect of A0.14 dec. of land from ex-Zamindar. Similarly Juja Behera, Kusa Behera, Sankar Behera and Naba Behera had obtained patta on 18.1.43 in respect of A0.10 dec. of land. Kasturi Bal and Ananda Bal, father of defendants no.2 and 3 had obtained patta on 19.5.53 in respect of A0.02 dec. of land from the ex- Zamindar. The lessees are in possession of their respective lands. They used to pay rent. In R.F.Case No.541 of 1983, A0.02 dec. of land had been settled in favour of defendant no.2 and brother of defendant no.3. In rent fixation case, rent had been fixed in respect of A0.10 dec. of land and rent schedule had been granted to the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 and 8 purchased A0.03¾ dec. of land from Basanta Kumar Nanda by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.2.82. In the consolidation operation, A0.14 dec. of land had been recorded in the name of defendant no.1, A0.02 dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants 2 and 3, A0.09 dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants 4 and 7 and A0.03¾ dec. of land had been recorded in the names of defendants as A0.04 dec. No public notice had been issued before settlement of the land in favour of Basanta Kumar Nanda.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues. Both parties led evidence. The learned trial court came to hold that when the consolidation operation was going on in the area, where the suit land falls, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs are the earlier purchasers of the suit land and they are in possession of the same. Held so, it decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed M.A.No.31 of 1988-I in the court of the learned District Judge, Balasore. The learned appellate court held that the defendants purchased a portion of the suit land measuring A0.03¼ dec. from Basanta Kumar Nanda. Thereafter the same was sold to the plaintiffs. There was no sale deed in favour of the defendants. Rent settlement was prepared in the year 1980 in the name of Basanta Kumar Nanda in respect of A0.40 dec. out of A0.65 dec. of the land. A0.40¼ dec. of land was sold to the plaintiffs.