JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. This Second Appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2013 and 17.6.2014, respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A.No.104 of 2010 confirming the First Appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2010 and 1.10.2010, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.S. No.56 of 1997 dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs are the appellants and Defendants are the Respondents in this Second Appeal. Hence, in the judgment respective parties are shown as plaintiffs and defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

2. The suit land relates to a piece of homestead land measuring 45 feet in width x 60 feet in length situated within Baidyanathpur Revenue village of Berhampur Town. They pertain to Plot No.610/2362, under Khata No.734 and Plot No.610/2363, under Khata No.282. One Krushna Panda was the original owner of the suit land and he has sold 45 feet x 75 feet and 10 feet 6 inch x 75 feet each under two Registered Sale Deeds dated 19.1.1978 in favour of Rama Chandra Pasupalak and Janaki Pasupalak on payment of consideration. It is averred that Plaintiff No.1 purchased her portion of the suit land (30 feet x 60 feet) from one Rama Chandra Pasupalak and Janaki Pasupalak under Registered Sale Deed No.4643 dated 27.10.1992 on payment of consideration. Out of the aforesaid two plots which is marked as ABCD attached to the plaint, after sale of the said land Rama Chandra Pasupalak still have land to the north of said sold land and same is marked as ABXY. The Plaintiff No.2 acquired the balance portion of 15 feet x 60 feet suit land inclusive of the total area measuring (30 feet x 60 feet) from Janaki Pasupalak under Registered Sale Deed No.4642 dated 27.10.1992 on payment of due consideration. Said portion is also marked as CDEF in the plaint schedule. Subsequently the Plaintiff No.2 sold 15 feet x 60 feet out of said 30 feet x 60 feet marked as CDGH and the plan attached to the plaint under the Registered Sale Deed on payment of consideration. It is stated that said purchased land which is part of the suit land is found to be in exclusive possession of Janaki Pasupalak who delivered same to Plaintiff No.2. This portion of land has been mutated in the name of Janaki Pasupalak vide Plot No.610/2363 appertaining to Khata No.282. Since portion of this 15 feet x 60 feet suit land has been wrongly recorded in the name of one Amita Mahapatra vide Khata No.1030/622 and Plot No.2363/2864, the Plaintiff No.2 as a matter of abundant caution joined as co-vendor through his agent Nimain Ch. Sabat. When Plaintiff No.1 acquired the said 15 feet x 60 feet land from Plaintiff No.2 under the above Registered Sale Deed, the Plaintiff No.1 along with her husband continued to possess the entire suit land measuring 45 feet x 60 feet by putting fenced iron wire but on 7.5.1995 the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the said suit land. So, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession from the suit property measuring 15 feet x 60 feet covered under Plot No.610/2363 pertaining to Khata No.282 marked as CDGH with consequential reliefs of mandatory injunction and to pay damages to the Plaintiffs.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

3. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 refuting the averment of the Plaintiffs stated that one Krushna Chandra Panda was the owner of the suit land including other lands which constituted a part of Hatibandha filled with water. It is the case of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 that during 1977 and 1978 Krushna Chandra Panda made two rows of plots on the said bandha and sold same to several persons including Smt. Janaki Pasupalak and Rama Chandra Pasupalak, the vendors of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. During the year 1980, he also made a third row of plots on the remaining undisputed portion of the said land and sold them to several persons including Sunita Padhy, the vendor of Defendant No.2 and Amita Mohapatra and her mother Saras