IMPORTANT POINT
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title if the plaintiff's title is not in dispute, and abatement of a suit under the OCH and PFL Act, 1972, requires a formal order.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellants of this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.26 of 1977 and they were the appellants before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.42 of 1979. The respondents of this 2nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.26 of 1977 and they were the respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.42 of 1979.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs before the trial court vide T.S. No.26 of 1977 was a suit for injunction against all the defendants except defendant nos.5 to 7.

4. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court in their suit vide T.S. No.26 of 1977 was that, all the defendants except defendant nos.5, 6 and 7 are the descendants of Sugri Gauntia.

The plaintiffs and defendant nos.5, to 7 are the descendants of Kairu and Markanda.

5. In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

6. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were recorded in the 2nd and 3rd settlement in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 to 7. The plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 to 7 were/are in possession over the suit properties under Khata Nos.3 and 4 of 3rd settlement. The plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 to 7 have been paying rents of the suit properties to the Government. The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. They (defendants) have never possessed the suit properties at any point of time. Though in the 4th settlement, the draft RoR of the suit properties were prepared in the name of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 to 7, but, subsequently, all the defendants other than defendant nos.5 to 7 by taking the officers of the settlement authorities into their confidence managed to prepare final RoR of the suit properties in the 4th settlement in their names erroneously. On the basis of the erroneous RoR of the 4th settlement in respect of the suit properties in the names of the defendants, the defendant nos.1 to 4 created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. For which, a proceeding vide Misc. Case No.70/11 of 1952 was initiated under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. against them (defendants), in which, the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties was declared. Then, again the defendant nos.1 to 3 created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. For which, another 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding vide Misc. Case No.268 of 1956 was initiated, in which the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties was also declared on 07.10.1958. Thereafter, for the 3rd time, an another Misc. Case vide Misc. Case No.24 of 1976 under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of the suit properties at the instance of the defendant no.1, but, when the defendant no.1 came to know that, he cannot succeed in that proceeding, then, he approached for dropping of that proceeding and at the instance of defendant no.1, that proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No.24 of 1976 was dropped. In spite of continuous defeat of the defendants from the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the suit properties, the defendant nos.1 to 4 tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, for which, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. 26 of 1977 against the defendants praying for restraining all the defendants except defendant nos.5 to 7 permanently from interfering into their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, as their possession over the suit properties, has already been declared in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No.268 of 1956 on dated 07.10.1958.

7. Hav