A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiffs' title is disputed and no declaration of title is sought, as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the 1^st Appellate Court.

2. For convenience, the parties are described as per their respective status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs case, briefly stated is, the suit schedule land originally belonged to the ex-intermediary- Ganeswar Mishra, who leased out the same to the original plaintiff No.1-Radhu Panda (since deceased) by an unregistered deed of lease on 17.04.1939 on receipt of rent. The said land was vested in the State Government with the plaintiffs being accepted as a tenant as per order passed in OEA Misc. Case No.170/94 of 1980. Further, the Consolidation Authorities also recorded the suit land in the names of the plaintiffs, who possessed the same by paying rent. On the other hand, the defendants having no manner of right, title, interest or possession challenged the order of the Consolidation Authorities in Remand Revision No.467 of 1986, which was dismissed. Again they filed OJC No.6116 of 1991 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 18.12.1991. The defendants thereafter tried to obstruct the free and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also threatened to catch fish from the suit tank. Hence, the suit.

4. Of the three defendants, defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not appear but defendant No.3 being the Sarpanch of Saina Sasan Gram Panchayat appeared and filed his written statement, inter alia, pleading that after vesting of Sabik Plot No. 2037 with the State Government, it was transferred by the Collector, Puri to the said Gram Panchayat for rearing fish and other purposes. Since then the suit property is in the possession of defendant No.3, which is being put to auction regularly every year and sometimes, the panchayat is itself cultivating fish and the income earned thereby is taken to the account of Gram Panchayat and maintained. All the inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat are in enjoyment and possession of the suit property. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs fraudulently and surreptitiously prepared records in their name in collusion and connivance with the Consolidation Authorities but they have no clear right, title, interest and possession over the suit tank. Further, the suit was challenged as not maintainable as only the relief of permanent injunction was claimed without claiming declaration of title.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issue for determination:-

1. Is the suit legally maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit?

3. Have the plaintiffs any clear right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

4. Has the defendant No.3 any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

6. To what other reliefs?

6. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record including the Sabik settlement ROR of 1927-28 (Ext. E), the trial court found that Ganeswar Mishra was not at all the ex-landlord but Radha Prasad Bhagat and Mahanta Bhagaban Ramanuj Das were the actual landlords through their common manager. The plaintiffs utterly failed to show how the suit plot came to the hands of Ganeswar Mishra after 1927-28. The trial court further found that no jamabandi was filed by the ex- intermediary in favour of plaintiff No.1 and no tenant ledger was opened in this name. As regards the order of settlement passed in the OEA case vide Ext. 3, the trial court did not accept the same as the same was in torn condition with several over wr