IMPORTANT POINT
A permanent injunction cannot be granted in a property dispute without a clear determination of the title to the property, especially when the claimant's possession is based on an unregistered agreement that does not confer legal rights.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No. 38 of 2010.

The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed Title Suit No.123 of 1999 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal arraigning the Appellant and Respondent No.2 as the Defendants and one Ram Deo Laxminarayan as the 3rd Defendant, who having died during pendency of the suit, his name has been expunged as dead. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession with further prayer of permanent injunction over the land measuring Ac.0.04 dec. under Sabik Khata No.15, Plot No.263 corresponding to Hal Khata No.22, Plot No.256, an area of 6 ft. x 8 ft. and Hal Khata No.6, Plot No.257 of an area of 16 ft. x 80 ft. The suit having been decreed, this Appellant being the aggrieved Defendant No.1 had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code, which has also been dismissed.

2. 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.

3. Plaintiff's case is that the land as noted above originally belonged to one Sachidananda Singh who transferred the same by way of sale to Lalit Mohan Nanda. Pursuant to said transaction, mutation was carried out in the year 1944 and Lalit Mohan became the absolute owner of the said land and possessed the same which was in total Ac.01.25 dec. under Sabik Khata No.15 vide Plot No.263, Mouza-Ichhadeipur. Lalit Mohan being the owner of the said land, thereafter sold portions of it to different persons. The present suit land extending to Ac.0.04 dec had been purchased by Md. Abdul Reheman from Lalit Mohan by registered sale deed of the year 1962. Md. Abdul Reheman thereafter sold the suit land to the deceased, Defendant no.3, namely, Ram Deo Laxminarayan since dead, by registered sale deed dated 25.09.1962.

The Plaintiff states that he thereafter on 15.04.1986 entered into an agreement for sale with the Defendant No.3 for an agreed consideration of Rs.10,000/- The Plaintiff thereafter since that date remained in possession of the suit land. He planted a number of fruit bearing trees over the said land. When the matter stood thus and the Plaintiff was in peaceful possession for a continuous period, he came to know that during Hal Settlement Operation, no separate plot in respect of the suit land had been carved out. In spite of repeated request, the Defendant No.3 did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff as agreed upon. It then came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that an area of 6 ft x 80 ft has been wrongly emalgamated with the eastern side of Hal Plot No.256 belonging to the Defendant No.1 and the remaining portion of 16 ft x 18 ft with the western side of Plot No.257 belonging to Defendant No.2.

Be that as it may, the Plaintiff continued to be in possession of the said land as before notwithstanding the recoding in the Hal Settlement. It is stated that the dispute arose when Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0.05 dec. of land from Hal Plot No.255/369 from out of Sabik Plot No.263 from the successors of Lalit Mohan Nanda by a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1999. His further case is that there was no such land under Plot No.255/369 in existence in the field. However, Defendant No.1 on the strength of her said purchase started claiming a portion of the suit land as her purchased land. It is alleged in the said process, Defendant No.1 knowingly fully well that she had no right, title and interest over the suit land on 29.09.1999, tried to dig foundation on the suit land by force. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking the reliefs as afore-stated.

4. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not come forward to contest the suit and were set ex parte.

5. The Defendant No.1 in her w