Finality of prior judgments remains protected under law, preventing challenges in subsequent proceedings unless reversed through appropriate means.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 and appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993.

The respondent (deity) in this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 and respondent before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993.

3. The suit of the plaintiff-deity (respondent in this 2^nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 against the defendants (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration, correction of R.o.R and permanent injunction in alternative recovery of possession.

4. The suit land is Ac.0.71 decimals of Hal Plot No.313 under Hal Khata No.180 in Mouza Pimpala under Ranpur P.S. in the District of Nayagarh.

5. The case of the plaintiff-deity (respondent in this 2^nd appeal) before the learned Trial Court was that, the plaintiff (deity) is the owner of the suit plot No.313 Ac.0.71 decimals in Mouza Pimpala.

The father of Panchu Senapati (defendant No.1) i.e. Sanei Senapati was a bhag tenant under the plaintiff (deity) in respect of the suit plot No.313 Ac.0.71 decimals under Khata No.180 of village Pimpala. Even though, the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. Sanei Senapati was not the owner of the suit land, but he had managed to record his name erroneously in the R.o.R. under sthitiban dhulibhag tenant without knowledge of the marfatdar of the plaintiff (deity). Sanei Senapati (father of defendant No.1) died leaving behind defendant No.1 (Panchu Senapati) as his successor. Then, the plaintiff (deity) filed the suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I against Panchu Senapati, his widow mother and Raghunath Rana in the Court of Munsif, Nayagarh for evicting them (defendants) from the suit plot No.313. But, the said suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I filed by the plaintiff (deity) was dismissed.

Thereafter, the plaintiff (deity) challenged the same preferring an appeal vide T.A. No.70 of 1959 before the Appellate Court i.e. in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar.

After hearing, the said appeal vide T.A. No.70 of 1959 filed by the plaintiff (deity) was allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.20 of 1958-I was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff (deity) vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I against the defendants was decreed and accordingly, a decree of eviction from the suit plot No.313 was passed against the defendants i.e. against Panchu Senapati, his widow mother and Raghunath Rana i.e. against all the defendants of the said suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I.

As per the execution of the above decree passed in T.A. No.70 of 1959 through Execution Case No.7 of 1962, the possession of the suit plot No.313 was recovered from the defendants thereof on 05.12.1962 (Ext.4). As such, since 05.12.1962, the plaintiff (deity) is in possession over the suit plot No.313. The suit Plot No.313 was debottar niskar land. For which, the plaintiff (deity) was not paying rent for the same, but the plaintiff (deity) was only paying cess for the same.

As the suit plot No.313 was debottar niskar land, for which, as per order dated 28.05.1984 passed in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981, the rent of the suit Plot No.313 was fixed in the name of plaintiff (deity) and since then, the plaintiff (deity) has been paying rent of the suit Plot No.313.

In fact, the suit plot No.313 is under Khata No.180, but not under Khata No.181. The said plot No.313 was erroneously included under Khata No.181. For which, the plaintiff (deity) filed a mutation case vide