A person in possession of land without title has an interest in the property which is heritable and good against all the world excepting the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

Aruna Suresh, J. - Impugned in this appeal is the judgment dated 24.12.1985 and decree dated 10.1.1986 of the First Appellate Court whereby the judgment dated 17.3.1981 and decree dated 2.4.1981 of the Munsif, Dhenkanal(Civil Judge, Junior Division) has been reversed.

2. Appellant herein (plaintiff) filed a suit being T.S. No.26 of 1976 for permanent injunction in respect of property in Plot No.3906 Khata No.2099 of last settlement situated in Dhenkanal town measuring an area of Ac.0.42 decimals against the respondents herein (defendants) seeking following reliefs:

(a) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to dismantle the house of the plaintiff standing on the suit plot either by themselves or through any of their agencies.

(b) for a decree directing the defendants not to go over the suit land till the title to the suit land is declared by competent authority.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is a Government land. In the remark column of last settlement (Ext.3-khatian), he has been shown in forcible possession of the land since 1944. An encroachment Case No.50 of 1966 was initiated by Tahasildar, Dhenkanal against him. Vide order dated 27.12.1967, Tahasildar observed that he was in unauthorized possession for about 23 years and impose penalty of Rs.462.30 and Rs.231.15 u/s 3 & 5 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act with the directions to vacate the encroachment at once.

4. He had constructed a residential house on the impugned plot about 35 years back. He had also enclosed that area and had grown some trees and other plantation etc. and had been using the same as a Bari. He also claimed adverse possesory rights in the property in suit.

5. The defendants are alleged to have broken the fence, destroyed the plants and damaged the vegetables on 23.8.1976 and started leveling the ground to erect houses. He immediately filed a complaint before the SDJM, Dhenkanal. However, the defendants constructed seven temporary huts.

When plaintiff came to know from the defendants that they intended to dismantle his house and throw out his family who are living there, he apprehended dispossession from his house at the hands of the defendants. Hence, he filed the suit.

6. Defendants no. 1, 2, 3 & 5 contested the suit by completely refuting the assertions made by the plaintiff in the plaint including his claim of possessory rights over the impugned land. The contested defendants also challenged the maintainability of the suit on various grounds like non-joinder and mis-jointer of parties, non-maintainability of the suit for non-implementation of Govt. of Orissa as co-defendants and also having not claimed the relief of possession, in view of his assertion in the plaint that defendants had encroached upon part of the impugned land.

7. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 21.9.1977 against which respondents went in appeal. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded back the case vide judgment dated 4.7.1978 for fresh disposal.

8. The trial Court after framing of additional issues, recorded. fresh evidence of the parties and after giving due opportunity of hearing, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 17.3.1981.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants filed T.A No.7 of 1981. The Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.1985 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that a suit for permanent injunction in the absence of relief for possession and declaration of title was not maintainable.

10. In this appeal, following substantial question of law as framed on 6.5.1986 needs adjudication.

Whether a suit for permanent injunction only would be maintainable in respect of land in possession of the plaintiff where he has no title on the allegation that others having no better interest than him are interfering with his possession?

11. None has appeared on behalf of the respo