Settlement record of rights does not extinguish prior title, and collusive judgments lack binding authority on necessary parties.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 2022 & 24th December, 2022 respectively passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.14/1 of 2016.

The Respondent, as the Defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11th December, 2015 & 26th December, 2015 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1385 of 2010 instituted by the present Appellant as the Plaintiff had preferred the Appeal under Section- 96 of the Code. The First Appellate Court has set aside judgment and decree dated 11th December, 2015 & 26th December, 2015 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1385 of 2010 in favour of the present Appellant (Plaintiff) and accordingly, the present Appellant-Plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed and she has been non-suited. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful Plaintiff as the Appellant.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff’s suit involves a dispute as to title over the suit land and prayer for permanent injunction with other ancillary prayers. The Plaintiff states that the suit property is covered under the land assigned with sabik Plot No. 259 appertaining the sabik Khata No.179 of mouza:

Laxmisagar and that according to her, corresponds to the land under Hal Khata No.137, Plot No.151/1312 Further corresponding the land under Khata No.150, Plot No.59/1301 out of Ac.0.900 decimals, Ac.0.099 decimals corresponding to mutation khata No.565/146. Plot No.59/1301/1869 of an area of Ac.0.088 decimals along with some other plots which stood jointly recorded in favour of Bika Behera, Kunja Bihari Mohanty, Lingaraj Moharana and Nagendra Prasad Das.

It is stated that all the recorded owners alienated their respective 1/4th share in favour of different purchasers. Bika Behera had sold the part falling in his share over the total land measuring Ac.0.099 decimals in favour of the Plaintiff by registered sale-deed dated 15.04.1958 and it is said that Bika Behera had delivered possession of the suit land and that was recorded during settlement operation in her name being assigned with plot No.59/1301 under khata No.150. The Plaintiff for certain personal reason could not pay the rents towards the suit property. In the year 2009, when the Plaintiff went to pay the rent, the local Revenue Inspector refused to accept the same citing the reason that Ac.0.088 decimals out of the purchased land of the Plaintiff had been recorded in the name of Defendant by an order passed in the mutation case.

The Plaintiff then enquired into the matter and learnt that her purchased area has been recorded in favour of the Defendants by an order passed in Mutation Case No.2789/1997 and on the basis of the claim of the Defendant to have purchased the property from one Bishnu Charan Mohanty. The Plaintiff further ascertained that the recording of the land in favour of the Defendant is based on a void sale-deed, which is invalid being executed by his vendor-Bishnu Charan Mohanty (vendor therein) basing upon the decree passed in a suit i.e. O.S. No.32 of 1977 instituted at the instance of Kunja Bihari Mohanty; wherein the Plaintiff was not a party, though she had purchased the suit land way back in the year 1958 i.e. about 19 years before the suit and the vendor of the Plaintiff wh