The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over a property is maintainable and not barred by limitation, especially when the plaintiff can prove valid purchase and possession of the property.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in RFA No. 59 of 2014.

2. By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court while allowing the First Appeal under section 96 of the Code filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore in C.S. No. 192 of 2005-I. The suit for declaration of the right, title and interest of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) over the suit land and confirmation of their possession; in further injunction the Appellant (Defendant No.1) and Respondent No. 5 (Defendant No.2) from creating any sorts of disturbance in peaceful possession of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) over the suit land having been dismissed by the Trial Court, the same has been reversed by the First Appellate Court and finally, the suit has been decreed.

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

4. The Plaintiffs' case in short is that the suit land originally belonged to one Kangali Jena and it stood recorded in his name in the record of Major Settlement Khata No. 26. Said Kangali Jena has sold the property in question to the Plaintiffs by obtaining necessary permission from the Competent Authority as required under section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (OLR Act) in OLR Permission Case No. 49 of 1977. For the purpose, Kangali Jena had executed the registered sale deed on 21.02.1983 and had delivered the possession of the suit land to the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Plaintiffs since the time of purchase have been continuing with their possession and paying rent to the State.

5. It is their case that they being rustic villagers were unaware about the settlement operation and in view of their absence at different stages of the settlement operation, the suit land continued to be recorded in the name of Kangali Jena without noting the change of hands. Taking advantage of said wrong recording in Raghupati Settlement in the name of Kangali Jena, the defendants with help of same mischievous persons threatened to dispossess the Plaintiffs. Being apprehensive of said dispossession, the Plaintiffs then only could ascertain about such erroneous recording of the land in the name of Kangali Jena. It is said that the Defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Thus the suit has come to be filed.

6. The Defendants entering appearance in the suit in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have pleaded that their grandfather Kangali Jena had never sold the suit land to the Plaintiffs and at no point of time, he has executed the said sale deed. It is stated that the suit land is their ancestral property. They are in possession of the same and exercising their right as owners thereof. The move of the Plaintiffs in filing the suit for the reliefs claim is stated to be with a mischievous aim of grabbing the suit land.

7. The Trial Court on such rival pleadings having framed four issues has straightway dismissed the suit by simply taking the view that the suit having been filed after expiry of the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under section 42 of Orissa Survey Settlement Act and when the record of right which is said by the Plaintiffs to have been erroneously prepared has not been challenged within three years of the publication; the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, holding the record of the suit land as per the record of the Raghupati Settlement as correct, the Plaintiffs have been non-suited.

8. The Lower Appellate Court having gone to discuss that aspect has held that the Trial Court has erred on fact and law in construing the suit as one