The Appellate Court reinstated the Plaintiff's title over the land, highlighting that unproven mutation records cannot extinguish existing ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

Since the Appellant, by filing both these Appeals, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has challenged the common judgment dated 25.02.2020 followed by the decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Koraput in R.F.A. No.01 of 2018 and RFA No.02 of 2018 which had been filed by the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 who had been arraigned as Defendant No.1 and 2 in the Trial Court in challenging the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.137 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Koraput, which had been filed by the present Appellant as the Plaintiff; those were heard together for their disposal by this common judgment.

The present Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration of his right, title, interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession followed by a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants from interfering in the possession of the suit land. The suit having been decreed, the Respondent No.1 & 2 (Defendant Nos.1 & 2) had carried two separate Appeals under section 96 of the Code. Those two first Appeals having been allowed, now the Appellant being the non-suited Plaintiff has filed these two Appeals.

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 Suit.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that the land better described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint stood recorded in the name of his father, namely, Pydithalli, who was in possession of the same. The Plaintiff claims to be in possession of the said land after the death of his father as its exclusive owner. The Defendant No.1 purchased a piece of land measuring Ac 3.00 cent in Mouza Monabar, which is situated just behind the land described in Schedule ‘A’ in Mouza Kumbha- II. The Defendant No.1 constructed a bridge over a drain which is the dividing line of the land of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and started transporting the building material through the middle portion of the land of the Plaintiff without his consent. As the Plaintiff was residing outside the District of Koraput being intimated by his friends, he came over to Koraput and objected to such high handedness of the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 then claimed that the land belongs to the Defendant No.2, (Koraput Municipality). The Defendant No.1 threatened the Plaintiff to construct a road over the suit land linking to the road running from Boriguma to Koraput. It is further stated that the Defendant No.2 went for selling application forms for allotment of the shop rooms for commercial purpose which was to be constructed over different portions of the land belonging to the Plaintiff in front of the purchased land of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff then made enquiry and found that the Defendants in order to grab the property of the Plaintiff were attempting to tress pass over the same. The Defendant No.1 thereafter started to dump earth and sands over the land of the Plaintiff for lying a road on the northern side; that is from the road running from Boriguma to Koraput of width of about 10 feet up to the southern side drain and length of about 345 feet, which has been described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, was compelled to file the suit.

4. The Defendant No.1 in the written statement while traversing the plaint averments has stated that the Plaintiff is not the owner the suit land and was never in possession of the suit l