Injunction suits are maintainable where the plaintiff is in lawful possession, even amidst title disputes, unless the defendant can demonstrate a valid claim to title.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the reversing judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak on 28.10.2022 followed by decree in RFA No.30 of 1999, whereby the judgment passed on 27.03.1999 followed by decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Basudevpur in T.A. No. 48 of 98-I was reversed.

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

3. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff, Maguni Das for demarcation and permanent injunction against the original defendant, Harekrushna Das with prayer to restrain him from interfering in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and for declaration that the order passed by the Tahasildar, Basudevpur in Tauzi Misc. Case No. 122/97 and the order of mutation passed by him as void along with consequential relief.

4. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated, is that the suit land is his paternal property. In the major settlement operation it was recorded under Khata No. 56, Plot No. 74 with an area of Ac.0.13 dec. He was in peaceful possession thereof since the time of his father. The defendant’s lands situate to the east and south of the suit land. The defendant, with a malafide motive, to grab the suit land, cut the southern and western side ridges of the suit land on 28.06.1998 in order to dispossess the plaintiff. He also openly threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. On query by the plaintiff, the defendant disclosed that his land had been amalgamated in the plaintiff’s land. When the plaintiff suggested demarcation of the land by the local Amin on 29.06.1998, the defendant refused. Further, the defendant initiated a misc. case and a mutation proceeding in respect of the suit land behind the back of the plaintiff before the Tahasildar, Basudevpur and obtained a favourable order. According to the plaintiff, the Tahasildar is not competent to correct the ROR. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant’s case, on the other hand, is that necessary orders for correction of the ROR had been passed by the Tahasildar, Basudevpur in Tauzi Misc. Case No.122/97 basing on the sale deed in favour of the defendant as also his possession. The suit land along with other undisputed lands was under C.S. Khata No.635 belonging to Kelu Das and others. By efflux of time, the title of Kelu Das was obliterated and the lands went to the hands of other persons. Out of this suit Khata No. 635, Plot No.139 with area Ac. 0.59 dec., one Sudhakar Mohanty sold Ac.0.19 dec. to the father of the plaintiff, namely Kanduri Das on 11.08.1941, whereupon he possessed the same. Said Kanduri sold Ac.0.19 dec. of the land to the defendant on 27.03.1969 under registered sale deed and delivered possession. Out of the same plot, one Panu Das had purchased Ac.0.22 dec. which was recorded under MS Khata No. 640, Plot No.75. After death of Panu, his legal heirs sold said land to the defendant on 13.03.1985 and delivered possession. The MS Map in respect of MS Plot no. 75 had been wrongly prepared as Ac.0.16 dec. though the RoR was for Ac.0.22 dec. along with physical possession of the defendant over the said extent of land. The defendant therefore, got the MS Map corrected by the Tahasildar, Basudevpur. The disputed MS Plot No.74 with an area of 0.13 dec. was created out of CS Plot Nos.139 and 140, whereby Ac.0.12 dec. was brought from CS Plot No.139 and Ac.0.01 dec. from CS Plot No.140. Ms Plot No.74 under Khata No.156 was wrongly recorded in the name of Kanduri Das. Said Ac.0.19 dec. of land, which defendant had purchased from Kanduri was recorded under MS Plot No. 73 for an area of 0.13 dec. in the name of the defendant. The remaining Ac.0.06 dec. of land out of Ac.0.19 dec. was wrongly amalgamated in MS Plot No. 74, which is in the name of Kanduri Das. Taking note of the aforesaid, the Tahasildar, Basudevpur in mutation proceeding recorded this Ac.0.06 dec. in the name of the defendant under MS Khata No.1214 and Pl