The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the Consolidation Act are not vested with the power to record forcible possession with a party while preparing the land record.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Naidu, J. - This Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC is filed by the successors of Defendant of Title Suit No. 1/252 of 1986/1984 of the Court of Addl. Munsif-cum-J.M.S.C., Puri. The said suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, as Plaintiffs, inter alia, praying for declaring the note of possession of Puma Chandra Panda, the original Defendant made in the R.O.R., Ext.1 published on July 8,1980 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as wrong, illegal & consequently to delete the same & for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from coming over the suit land & creating disturbances in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs, in the alternative if it is found that during pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit land to restore their possession.

2. The suit schedule properties, as would be evident from the schedule of the plaint, appertains to Consolidation R.O.R. Plot No. 188 having an area of Ac.0.10 dec. out of Khata No. 99, corresponding to Plot No. 257, Khata No. 103, area Ac. 0.12 dec. of 1966 R.O.R. The said lands are situated in mouza Thanathana under Pipili Police Station. The lands originally admittedly belonged to the deity "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu", Plaintiff No. 1, represented through its Marfatdar, Plaintiff No. 2.

The facts of the case have been elaborately dealt with in the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court & as such, without going into the details, only the relevant facts, which are necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes are stated hereinbelow.

According to the plaint case, "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" is the family deity of Plaintiff No. 2. & the suit properties stood recorded in the name of the deity represented through Plaintiff No. 2, as the sole marfatdar. It is averred that Plaintiff No. 2, being in need of money wanted to mortgage the properties & incur a loan from one Uchhab Patra. The said Uchhab Patra, however, was not a registered money lender, therefore, in good faith, he executed a nominal sale deed in the year 1970 in favour of Uchhab with an understanding that the latter would execute a deed of reconveyance after the amount is paid back. In spite of such sale deed, the possession was all along retained by the Plaintiffs. It is further averred that though the Plaintiffs repaid the loan amount to said Uchhab, & requested him, he did not execute the reconveyance deed. Consequently, the Plaintiffs took the help of village panch. As per the decision of the panch, the original Defendant Puma Chandra Panda was nominated as the mediator to take steps for execution of the reconveyance deed in favour of the Plaintiffs. The said Puma Chandra, it is alleged, in collusion with Uchhab managed to get the deed of reconveyance executed in his favour in stead of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity. On coming to know about the said fraud, the Plaintiffs brought the said fact to the notice of the villagers once again & on the intervention of the villagers, the original Defendant agreed to execute the reconveyance deed in favour of the Plaintiffs. But then, at the time of execution of the reconveyance deed, he only mentioned one plot. While the matter stood thus, the mouza in which the lands are situated came within the purview of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, in short, "the Consolidation Act". In course of consolidation operation, the suit properties were recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs in the R.O.R. published by the consolidation authorities, however in the remarks column, the note of possession was made in favour of the original Defendant. Taking advantage of such wrong entry, the original Defendant in the year 1984 plucked coconut from the trees standing over the disputed land & threatened the Plaintiff No. 2. to dispossess him from the suit land, consequently, the suit was filed.

3. After receiving notice, Defendant appeared & filed written statement denying the allegations