The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a thorough and reasoned analysis of the issues and evidence presented, as well as the correct application of the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act and the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiffs was that sabik khata no.367, plot no.714, admeasuring an area of Ac.0.22 dec. had been recorded in the name of Bidya Majhi, their ancestor, in sabik R.O.R.. After death of Bidya, his sons, Bhramar and Biswanath became the owner in possession of the land. Bhramar died leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Biswanath died leaving behind defendants 4 to 7 as legal heirs. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. In the hal settlement of the year 1976, Ac.0.12 dec. of land out of Ac.0.22 dec. had been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs. But then Ac.0.10 dec. of land had been wrongly recorded in the name of the State Government under Anabadi Khata. Khata no.625 and plot no.867 (suit plot) formed a part of the river bed. Taking advantage of wrong recording, defendants 2 to 4 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 to 4 have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. Defendant no.1 filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that in hal settlement, the suit land had been bifurcated and recorded in the name of the State of Orissa as river bed. Since defendants 2 to 4 had encroached upon the suit land, encroachment case was initiated against them.

4. Defendant no.2 also filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that the suit land had been formed by deposit of alluvium by the river. The same is a part of the river bed. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. Defendants 3 and 4 were set ex parte.

5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed seven issues. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The suit land was originally recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The same had been formed by deposit of alluvium by the river. The suit land adjoins the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to the land in view of the provisions of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation, 1825. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Felt aggrieved, defendant nos.1 & 2 filed separate appeals before the District Judge, Puri, which were subsequently transferred to the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri and renumbered as Title Appeal No.59/100 of 1985/83 & Title Appeal No.65/105 of 1985/1983. Both the appeals were heard together. The appellate court came to hold that the suit was not filed within three years from the date of publication of R.O.R.. In view of the provisions contained under Section 42 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by time. Held so, it dismissed the appeal.

6. This appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. 2(b), (c) & (d) of the appeal memo. The same are :

"(b) Whether the suit comes under Art.64 of the Limitation Act ?

(c) Whether the suit comes under Sec.42 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, read with Art.58 of the Limitation Act ?

(d) Whether the provision of Bengal Alluvians and Dilluvians Regulation is applicable to the present case ?"

7. Heard Mr. Prabhab Behera and Mr. Debasis Pattnaik on behalf of Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned A.S.C. for respondent no.1. None appeared for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

8. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs in para-9 of the plaint has specifically averred that on 1.4.1980 defendants 2 to 4 threatened to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have not denied the assertions made in the plaint. The cause of