JUDGMENT

The appellants by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred as the Code) has assailed the judgment and decree passed by; the learned District Judge, Bargarh in R.F.A.No. 17 of 2012 dismissing their appeal under Section 96 of the Code.

2. The respondents as the plaintiffs have filed the suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 68 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh seeking decree for eviction of the respondents from the suit house standing described schedule-B of the plaint and for permanent injunction.

The suit having been decreed, the above named appellants being the unsuccessful defendants suffering from the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court had carried the first appeal which has yielded no result for them. So in this appeal while praying for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court to the sufferance of the appellants, they further pray for dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents as the plaintiffs followed by refusal to grant such reliefs as have been granted.

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court.

4. Plaintiffs’ case is that the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 namely, Bidyadhar Majhi finding himself in great difficulties in maintaining himself and other dependants upon him as well as in fulfilling their expectations, came to Bargarh in search of a job in order to have a better earning. It is stated that Bidyadhar finally got a job in the IDCOL Cement Factory, Bargarh as a driver and thereafter the plaintiff got the employment as a driver in the IDC with effect from March, 1980. It is further stated that the plaintiff purchased the schedule ‘A’ land from one Hari Bhue by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1997 for consideration of Rs. 52,000/- and took delivery of possession of the said land which has been recorded in his name by order dated 22.02.2000 in Remand Revision Case No. 857 of 1998.

Plaintiff constructed the house and shop rooms over the said land by spending money from his own pocket as also incurring loans from his employer as well as from the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. After construction, he let out portion of the said house as well as some shop rooms to different persons inducted them as the monthly tenant therein.

It is stated that the defendants came to Bargarh on 15.11.2007 in search of jobs and other avenues for their better earning. So they requested the plaintiff to allow them to stay in the suit house. The plaintiff then favoured them by providing a portion of that house constructed over the schedule ‘A’ land for their shelter, the defendants however taking advantage of the situation, asserting ownership over the property in question demanded rent from others. It is further stated that the defendants although agreed to vacate the suit house when the matter had been taken up by the local police on receipt of the complaint regarding serious disturbance at the place, subsequently however turned around and served legal notice upon the plaintiff asserting their ownership. For the above reason, the suit has come to be filed.

5. Defendants specifically pleaded that the suit land was purchased by Bidyadhar, the father of the plaintiff sometime in the year 1985-86. In view of the fact that Hari Bhue, the original owner cum vendor was a member of Scheduled Tribe, no sale deed however had been registered. It is further stated that Bidyadhar had constructed seven kutcha houses and inducted different tenants over the different portions of the property and prior to his retirement, he had constructed pucca house over the suit land by spending money from the joint family fund. It is also stated that though the plaintiff had contributed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for construction of the pucca house, it had been paid b