Possession does not establish title; limited injunction against dispossession without due process granted.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 and the respondents before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1987.

3. The respondent in this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 and the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1987.

4. The case of the plaintiff(respondent in this 2^nd appeal) before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 against the defendants, i.e., against the State and the Tahasildar, Marsaghai as per the averments made in her plaint in a nutshell was that, the suit properties described in schedule of the plaint under Khata No.61, Plot No.116 Ac.1.50 decimals in Mouza-Mahakalpada in the district of Kendrapara were under the ex-intermediary estate of the ex-landlord called as Burdhwan estate having its status as Anabadi. The plaintiff in order to meet food problem of her family applied to the ex-landlord of Burdhwan estate in order to lease out the suit properties in her favour. After accepting the request of the plaintiff, the ex-landlord of Burdhwan estate leased out the suit land in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1948 after accepting ‘salami’ from her and making demarcation of the suit properties through deputation of Amin. After receiving the suit properties on lease in the year 1948 from the ex-landlord, the plaintiff reclaimed the suit properties and made it fit for cultivation and cultivated the same paying rent to the ex-landlord till the vesting of the ex-intermediary estate. Even after vesting of the Burdhwan estate with the Government as per Orissa Estate Abolition Act , the plaintiff continues her possession over the suit properties with the knowledge of the State and the Tahasildar, Marsaghai(defendants). Out of the suit properties, the plaintiff has been using Ac.0.95 decimals for cultivation purpose and also using the rest Ac.0.55 decimals for Dalua crop during summer season, as the said Ac.0.55 decimals out of the suit properties are low land. After vesting of the ex-intermediary estate with the Government, the plaintiff requested number of times to the Tahasildar, Marshaghari(defendant no.2) for recording the suit properties in her name and to accept the rent from her, but, instead of recording the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff, when the defendant no.2 threatened the plaintiff to disposses her from the same initiating encroachment proceeding against her(plaintiff) then, she (plaintiff) applied before the settlement authority for recording the suit properties in her name, which is pending for disposal. As such, she(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties continuously peacefully without interruption of anybody with the knowledge of the ex-intermediary as well as defendants for more than statutory period. For which, the plaintiff is the settled raiyat of the suit village in respect of the suit properties and she(plaintiff) has acquired occupancy right over the suit properties. When, on dated 25.02.1985, the defendant no.2 (Tahasildar, Marsaghari) threatened her (plaintiff) to evict her from the suit properties, then, she(plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 against the defendants seeking leave as per Sub-clause-(2) of Section 80 of the C.P.C., 1908 for filing of the suit without service of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. against the defendants praying for the relief(s), i.e., for a declaration that, she(plaintiff) is an occupancy raiyat in respect of the suit properties and to injunct the defendants permanently from dispossessing her from suit properties along