IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a new title created by the settlement of properties under the O.E.A. Act, 1951 operates to the exclusion of all prior claims, and a stranger purchaser from lawful owners cannot be restrained from entering the property under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The Appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and he was the respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993.

The respondents of this Second Appeal were the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 & 4 and defendant Nos.2 & 3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and they were the appellant Nos.1, 2, & 3 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the Second Appeal) against the defendant No.1 (who is the sole appellant in the Second Appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that, Govinda Upadhaya was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3. The said Govinda Upadhaya had three sons, namely, Banamali, Dasarathi and Ganesh. The plaintiffs belong to the branch of Dasarathi.

Dasarathi died leaving behind his son Krutibash. Krutibash died leaving behind his son Jogendra. Jogendra died leaving behind his six children, namely, Haladhar, Bhima, Khetrabasi, Bhairab, Bhramarbar and Golakh. The first and second child of Jogendra, namely, Haladhar and Bhima died without any issue. For which, the branch of Haladhar and Bhima has extinct. The third son of Jogendra, namely, Khetrabasi died leaving behind his wife Padmavati (plaintiff No.3). The fourth and fifth son of Jogendra, namely, Bhairab and Bhramarbara are the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 respectively. The sixth son of Jogendra i.e. Golakh died leaving behind his son Managobinda i.e. plaintiff No.4. The third son of Govinda i.e. Ganesh died leaving behind his daughter Jema. Jema died leaving behind her daughter Sabitri. Sabitri died leaving behind her two daughters i.e. Indramani and Saraswati (defendant Nos.2 & 3) respectively.

5. In order to have a better appreciation, the aforesaid family pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

6. The suit land is the 8C9 Schedule land of the plaint i.e. Plot No.2376/2945 Ac.0.16 dec. out of Ac.0.18 dec. under Khata No.89 and Plot No. 2432 Ac.0.02 dec. out of Ac.0.06 dec. under Khata No.768 in Mouza-Panasa under Jajpur police station. In the sabik settlement, the suit properties were recorded jointly in the names of the members of all the three branches of the aforesaid genealogy including Sabitri Dei (mother of defendant Nos.2 & 3). Though the suit properties were recorded jointly, but the members of three branches including Sabitri Dei were possessing the same separately as per their convenience without any metes and bounds partition between them. So, their separate possessions were noted separately in the remarks column of the plots of the sabik R.o.R. according to their possession. In the sabik R.o.R., the status/kisam of the suit properties were as 'AMBA BAGAYAT". In course of time, the mango trees were cut and removed from the suit properties and the suit properties were converted to homestead and bari land. The plaintiff No.1, Bhairab & Sabitri Dei had their residential houses on suit Plot No.2427. The defendant No.1, namely, Krushna Chandra Upadhaya is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs. Only a Rasta plot has been recorded jointly with the defendant No.19s father, which does not lead to a conclusion that, defendant is a co-sharer of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit plots. As the defendant No.1 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3, for which, he has no right to possess the suit properties jointly with the plaintiffs. Till yet, the defendant No.1 has not been able to enter into the suit properties. His entry into the suit properties shall spoil their family secrecy and prestige. When the defendant No.1 attempted to enter into the su