Plaintiffs failed to prove legal heirship and possession over disputed land; suit barred by limitation per Article 58, as filed beyond three years of earlier decision.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against a confirming judgment. The judgment passed by learned District Judge, Kendrapara on 17.5.2018 in R.F.A. No.72/2015 is under challenge in the present appeal whereby the judgment dtd.28.9.2015 followed by decree passed by learned Sr. Civil Judge, Kendrapara, in C.S. No.398/2004 was confirmed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. The following genealogy shows the relationship between the Plaintiffs;

4. The plaintiffs’ case is that one Sananda was their common ancestor. He had three sons namely, Ananta, Giridhari and Fakira. Giridhari died issueless. Fakira had one son namely, Jogendra who also died issueless. Ananta had a son named Babaji. The Plaintiffs are the children of Babaji and his successors in interest. It is claimed that Jogendra being issueless was in joint mess with Babaji. After his death Babaji being the Class-II legal heir succeeded to his property. The property was recorded in the name of Jogendra in 1930 settlement ROR. Babaji being in peaceful possession sold some portion from the recorded property i.e. from Sabik Khata No.613 on 1.5.1989 to one Lingaraj Jena vide RSD No.1677 and delivered possession thereof. The remaining portion of the property, i.e. Plot Nos.1485 and 1486 is the subject matter of the suit. The suit land was rent-free under ex-landlord with sthitiban status of Jogendra. After abolition of intermediary interest, Jogendra continued to be a tenant under the State Government. Babaji having succeeded to his property after his death, filed an application before the Tahasildar, Kendrapara for fixation of fair and equitable rent, but the same was wrongly treated as a case under OEA Act and registered as OEA Case No.580/1988. The said case was dismissed by order dated 29.12.1990. Babaji challenged the said order before this Court in OJC No.2754/1992. During pendency of the case, Babaji died and his legal heirs were substituted. The Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 22.4.1996 holding that the provisions of OEA Act are not applicable to the case of the Plaintiffs and directed the Tahasildar to consider the application in accordance with law. However, the Tahasildar by order dated 27.8.1997 again rejected the application with a finding that there is civil dispute and that the Appellants are not in possession of the suit land. The Plaintiffs again approached the Tahasildar for acceptance of rent and they were assured that rent could be settled in the major settlement operation. The Plaintiffs filed petition before the Settlement authority during settlement operations, but the same was not entertained. Since the Defendant Nos.4 to 11 caused disturbances, the Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and permanent injunction against the Defendant Nos.4 to 11.

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 being State-defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement separately mainly challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation. It was also stated that the Plaintiffs are not in possession.

Defendant No.4 (Ka) filed a written statement contesting the suit.

Defendant Nos.5 to 11 also filed their written statement questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, cause of action etc. On facts, it was pleaded that the Plaintiffs are not related to Jogendra at all. After death of Jogendra, the suit land was recorded in t