JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for a declaration that she is an occupancy tenant over the suit land and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belonged to Kujanga estate. In the year 1951, the Raja of Kujang with due permission of Collector, Cuttack under Act 1 of 1948 inducted Bipin Bihari Mandal, Akhil Chandra Patra and others as tenants in respect of Ac.78.00 dec. of land. Akhil Chandra Patra was inducted as a tenant in respect of Ac.7.00 dec. of land including the suit land. Akhil Chandra Patra was in possession of the suit land. He used to pay rent. The land vested in the State. State of Orissa accepted him as a tenant. On 5.6.1957, Akhil Chandra Patra sold the suit land to Radha Krushna Bera by means of a registered sale deed. Radha Krushna Bera sold the same to one Niharbala Mandal by means of a registered sale deed. Niharbala Mandal sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 23.2.1965 by means of a registered sale deed. She was in possession of the suit land. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was recorded as illegal in the ROR of the year 1966. The plaintiff through her husband approached the Tahasildar, Marsaghai, defendant no.2, several times for acceptance of rent etc. from 1968. While matter stood thus, on 4.3.1977, the Tahasildar denied to accept rent and threaten to lease out the suit land to others. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the ex-intermediary was in possession of the suit land. The land vested in the State. State is in possession of the land. Radha Krushna Bera had encroached upon the suit land for which Encroachment Case No.128 of 1968-69 was initiated against him. A case under Sec.5(i) of Orissa Estates Abolition Act (“O.E.A. Act”) was subjudice. The suit land did not appertain to the plot number of the land leased out to Bipin Bihari Mandal, Akhil Chandra Patra and others. The suit land was lying as Abadajogya Anabadi in Bhateni jungle block. The plaintiff had no semblance of right, title and interest over the same.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Learned trial court came to hold that Akhil Chandra Patra was in possession of the suit land till 1957. He acquired tenancy right over the same. He transferred the land to Radha Krushna Bera by means of a registered sale deed vide Ext.7. Radha Krushna Bera was in possession of the suit land till 1966. He sold the land to Niharbala Mandal by means of a registered sale deed dated 21.3.63, Ext.8. Thereafter Niharbala Mandal sold the land to the plaintiff on 23.2.65, Ext.9. The plaintiff had acquired right of occupancy over the suit land under Sec.25 of the Orissa Tenancy Act (“O.T. Act”). It further held that neither the plaintiff nor her vendor was in possession of the suit land. The final R.O.R. was published in the year 1966 in the name of Radha Krushna Bera with a note of illegal possession over the suit land. Since 1967, the plaintiff’s title was denied. Right to sue accrued in 1967. The suit was barred by limitation. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed T.A. No.8 of 1981 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. Learned appellate court came to a conclusion that cause of action arose on 4.3.77 when the defendant no.2 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. The suit was filed within the period of limitation. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

“(1) Whether the suit is barred under section 58 of the Limitation Act ?

(2) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit hol