JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This Second Appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1989 and 28.8.1989, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 2/8/4/ of 1981/80/78 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1978 and 15.11.1978, respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 9 of 1975-I. The parties referred to in the trial Court are also referred in this judgment.

FACTS

2. The unfolded story of the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff Alekha Charan Das had purchased the suit land from defendant No.2 Laxmidhar Maharathi. After death of original plaintiff Alekh, his widow Pramoda Das was substituted and now after her demise the present appellant, being sole legal heir is contesting the appeal. The suit land is a part Plot No. 216 which has original area of 32 acres. Admittedly Lord Sri Lingaraj was the owner of the entire area of 32 acres. On the request of the defendant No.2 in the year 1956, the temple authorities for the benefit and for augmentation of some funds for the institution decided to lease out the plot by making sub-division of the same. Accordingly applications were invited from intending persons. On the application of defendant No.2, suit Plot No. 216/9 lease was granted to defendant No.2 as per the decision of the Executive Officer of the temple on 31.3.1956.

3. Be it stated that the Commissioner of Endowment also allowed to grant lease vide O.A. No. 9/1956-57 under Section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called “the OHRE Act”). But the sanction was confined to 100 decimals out of same entire Plot No. 216 which includes the present suit plot. In 1961 defendant No. 2 paid the ‘salami’ on 29.9.1961. Thereafter demarcation and delivery of possession were made by the Temple Administration to defendant No.2 who paid the rent of same to defendant No. 3 till 1966. On 5.11.1966 defendant No.2 sold the suit property to plaintiff by Registered Sale Deed. After purchase, original plaintiff Alekh got the suit land mutated in his favour and obtained receipt on payment of rent. He has also raised a boundary wall around the land and constructed a small hut but occupied same till 1979. During course of possession, he got his name recorded in the settlement R.O.R.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that part Plot No. 216/10 adjoining the present suit Plot No. 216/9 was originally leased out by defendant No. 3 to Mohammed Sirazuddin. The mother-in-law of defendant No. 1 purchased the said Plot No. 216/10 from Mohammed Sirazuddin and possessed the same. It is alleged inter alia that the defendant No.1 being a Judicial Officer, having influenced the Temple authorities and Commissioner of Endowment got the lease in respect of suit plot No. 216/9 and defendant No.1 forcibly occupied both the plots, i.e., Suit Plot Nos. 216/9 and 216/10.

5. Be it stated that the defendant No.1 only allegedly got the leasehold right over the suit Plot No. 216/9 in the year 1972 whereas defendant No.2, the vendor of the plaintiff had got the leasehold right over the said suit land in the year 1956. Thus, the defendant No. 1 has no right thereon as per the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is alleged inter alia that the defendant No. 1 in order to occupy its suit plot demolished the wall and merged his mother-in-law’s land at Suit Plot No. 216/10 with Suit Plot No. 216/9 on 6.1.1974. So, the suit was filed by the original plaintiff against the defendants to declare right, title and interest over the suit property after declaration that defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest over the said suit property. Similarly it is prayed for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff thereon or in the alternative recovery of possession through the Court. Not only this but also it is prayed to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 and his men from intervening with the peaceful posses