The plaintiff was recognized as the adopted son of Parau Majhi, but the suit for exclusive ownership was dismissed due to established co-ownership.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellant of this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1989 and he was the appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1990.

3. The respondents of this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1989 and they were the respondents before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1990.

4. The suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.25 of 1989 against the defendants was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession through mandatory injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff (appellant in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendants (respondents in this 2^nd appeal) as per his pleadings in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1989 was that, the parties to the suit belong to SANTAL by caste and they are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The suit properties were originally belonged to Dharmal Majhi. That Dharmal Majhi died before Sabik Settlement of the year 1927 leaving behind his only son Bhika Majhi. After the death of Dharmal Majhi, the suit properties left by him devolved upon his son Bhika Majhi. So, in the Sabik Settlement of the year 1927, the suit properties were recorded in the name of Bhika Majhi under Sabik Khata No.24. The said Bhika Majhi had no issue of his own, for which, he (Bhika Majhi) adopted his cousin‟s son, i.e., Parau Majhi. Bhika Majhi died leaving behind his adopted son Parau Majhi as his only successor. Therefore, the suit properties left by Bhika Majhi devolved upon his son Parau Majhi.

Parau Majhi filed a suit vide T.S. No.07 of 1987 in the court of Sub- judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada praying for declaring him as the adopted son of Bhika Majhi. That suit vide T.S. No.07 of 1987 filed by Parau Majhi was decreed in his favour and he(Parau Majhi) was declared as the adopted son of Bhika Majhi.

Parau Majhi had also no natural born child of his own, for which, he(Parau Majhi) adopted plaintiff Sakila Majhi as his son. That Parau Majhi died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only son and successor. For which, after the death of Parau Majhi, the suit properties left by Parau Majhi devolved upon the plaintiff. As such, he(plaintiff) is the exclusive owner over the entire suit properties. But, during the Hal Settlement Operation, the settlement authorities on being influenced by the defendants, erroneously recorded the suit properties in the name of the defendant nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, husband of the defendant no.7 and the plaintiff jointly indicating the name of the plaintiff as the son of his natural father Kandra Majhi.

6. On the basis of the said wrong entry of the names of the defendants in the Hal RoR, they (defendants) tried to occupy the suit properties forcibly and in the year 1989, they (defendants) forcibly cut and removed the paddy crops from the same raised by the plaintiff. So, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1989 against the defendants praying for a declaration that, he (plaintiff) is the lawful owner over the suit properties and to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit properties to him(plaintiff) along with other reliefs, to which, he (plaintiff) is entitled for.

7. Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.25 of 1989, the defendant no