The main legal point established is that possession is crucial in obtaining an injunction, and discrepancies in the sale deed can impact the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Rath, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the affirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Jagannath Rath. The plaintiff and defendant no.3 purchased the same from Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed. They are in possession of the suit land. They used to grow paddy and seasonal vegetables over the same. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. They created disturbance in their possession.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, plaintiff and defendant no.3 had purchased sabik plot no.573 which corresponds to hal plot no.507. Sabik plot no.563 had been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed. Possession of the suit land had not been delivered to them. It was further pleaded that one Dambarudhar Samantaray was the original owner of sabik plot nos.573 and 563. He sold sabik plot no.573 to one Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed dated 8.9.1953, Ext.4. Instead of plot no.573, plot no.563 had been mentioned in the sale deed. Thereafter, Jagannath Rath sold the suit land to the plaintiff and defendant no.3. According to them, they are in possession of sabik plot no.563, whereas plaintiff and defendant no.3 are in possession of sabik plot no.573.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed seven issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A.No.4 of 1985 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Khurda, which met the same fate.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in grounds no.A, B & D of the appeal memo. The same are:

"A. For that the contesting defendants are no way related to original transferer viz. Dambarudhara Samantaray and they have no semblance of right title and interest in respect of the suit land. Except the allegation that they are in possession of the suit land along with the descendants of Dambarudhara Samantaray i.e. original owner of the suit land and while the descendants of Dambarudhara Samantaray have not challenged the sale deed, Ext.4 dated 8.9.1953 sale deed, Ext.1 dated 12.4.1958 on the ground that the mistake plot has been noted in the sale deed., at any time before the settlement authority or before this court, and further also they have not challenged the same or adduce the evidence in the present suit and hence, the contesting defendants have no locustandy to challenge that plot no.563 corresponds to current survey settlement plot no.487 has not been sold to the plaintiff and current settlement plot no.507 in fact sold to the plaintiff. The learned Court below without considering the aforesaid position dismissed the suit, and appeal which is bad and illegal and is liable to be set aside.

B. For that the plot number and area tally the term of the deed and there is no uncertainty about it and its identity is unquestionable in the fact and circumstance of the case and the fact that the suit land originally was belonged to Dambarudhara Samantaray is admitted. It is settled law that if independently of the boundaries the property can be sufficiently identified, any error of mis-description in boundaries can not affect either the suit or the decrees.

The area and plot no.1 under Ext.4 and Ext.1 is sufficiently identifiable in survey of settlement land and the record of rights. And it is also the admitted case that the said land is identifiable at the spot with reference to the plot number and area in question and as such the oral evidence adduced by the contesting defendants is hit by section 92 of the evidence Act and the learned Courts below made an error in law of holding that the plaintiff have purchased plot no.507 and not the plot no.563 is bad and illegal.

D. For that Ext.4 and Ext.1 are th