Mere possession does not confer possessory title; non-joinder of the true owner is grounds for dismissal.

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.01 of 1986 and respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.01 of 1989.

3. The respondent in this 2nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.01 of 1986 and appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.01 of 1989.

4. The suit of the respondent in this 2^nd appeal against the defendants(appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S. No.01 of 1986 was a suit for declaration of right, title, interest, for recovery of possession and for removal of constructions.

The suit land is situated inside a Basti under Government Khata No.71, Plot No.370 at Medri Sahi, Bissamcuttack described in the schedule of the plaint.

5. As per the case of the plaintiff, he purchased the suit land from one Appi Sahu for a consideration of Rs.1000/- through registered sale deed dated 05.02.1969 and on the basis of the said sale deed, he(plaintiff) got his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. After purchasing the suit land from Appi Sahu, he (plaintiff) raised pucca foundation on the same up to ground level, but, due to his some family trouble, he could not raise further constructions on the same, but, the defendants unauthorizedly started construction works on the foundations raised by the plaintiff on the suit land. When, the plaintiff got information about the same, he(plaintiff) went to the spot and protested against the raising of such illegal constructions on his foundations on the suit land, to which, the defendants did not pay any heed, but, they(defendants) proceeded with the construction works. For which, the plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.01 of 1986 against the defendants praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and to recover the possession of the same from the defendants directing the defendants to remove their illegal constructions from the suit land.

6. Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.01 of 1986, the defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff filing their joint written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint taking their pleas/stands specifically that, the defendant no.2 has purchased Ac.0.22 cents of land from Penta Suna and Penta Mandia on 12.06.1960 through registered sale deed No.278/60 adjacent to Medri Sahi of Bissamcuttack and since then, he(defendant no.2) has been possessing his said purchased land as the owner thereof. The defendant no.1 had three cents of land to the Eastern side of the purchased land of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 purchased the land of the defendant no.1 on dated 10.10.1984 through registered Sale Deed No.495/84 and raised constructions on the same. They(defendants) have not raised any foundation upon any foundation raised by the plaintiff. The specific case of the defendants that, the suit Plot No.370 is situated in Medri Street and to the East of Medri Street Plot Nos.371/1 and 371/2 are situated. The said Plot Nos.371/1 and 371/2 have been recorded in the name of the defendant no.2 and there is no goli rasta leading to Medri Street from the main road in the revenue map. For which, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the suit including the relief, i.e., declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land. Therefore, the