The court ruled that undoubted admissions regarding ownership eliminate the necessity for further proof, reinstating the trial court's decree favoring the plaintiffs against the procedural objections raised by the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.

2. The appellants of this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1986 and they were the respondents before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1990.

The predecessors of the respondents of this 2^nd Appeal i.e. Janakram Behera was the sole defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1986 and he was the appellant before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1990.

The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.25 of 1986 before the Trial Court was suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint situated in village Kirei pertaining to Sabik Plot No.165 under Khata No.8 Ac.0.07 decimals, which corresponds to Hal Plot No.969 under Hal Khata No.102 are the suit properties.

The case of the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1986 was that, defendant is a permanent resident of village Kirei. Surya Kumar Singh and his brothers were the original owners of the suit Sabik Plot No.165 Ac.2.43 decimals under Sabik Khata No.8. As per the partition between Surya Kumar Singh and his brothers, the suit properties had fallen into the share of Surya Kumar Singh, wherein Surya Kumar Singh being the exclusive owner, he was possessing and cultivating Rabi crops. That Surya Kumar Singh sold the suit properties to the plaintiff No.1 through registered sale deed dated 30.09.1978 for a consideration of Rs.200/- and delivered possession thereof to plaintiff No.1. The suit properties are situated by the side of Sundergarh-Jharsuguda main road in the village Kirei.

The defendant started a betel shop by the side of the road in front of the suit properties by installing a GUMUTI (CABIN) as per the permission of the plaintiff No.1. But, surprisingly, on 02.12.1982, the defendant constructed a hut encroaching some portion of the suit properties of the plaintiff No.1, to which, the plaintiff objected. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between the plaintiffs and defendant and the said proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. In that proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the defendant falsely claimed his long possession over the suit properties on the basis of illegal noting of his possession in the remarks column of the suit Hal Plot No.969 and he (defendant) also claimed that, the suit plot No.969 is a part of Sabik Plot No.116 but not the part of Sabik Plot No.165.

Sabik Plot No.116 corresponds to Hal Plot No.970. In that proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C, the possession of the defendant over the suit properties was illegally declared by the Executive Magistrate as per its Order dated 07.08.1986. The defendant had not constructed any hut on any portion of the suit properties prior to 1982. But, on the basis of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C in favour of the defendant, he (defendant) approached the Local Tahsildar, Sundargarh, for mutation of the suit properties into his name, but the said application for mutation of the defendant was rejected on the objection of the plaintiffs.

As, in the final order dated 07.08.1986, the Executive Magistrate had erroneously declared the possession of the defendant over the suit properties, for which, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1986 agai