Proper identification of property ownership is essential in disputes, and prior deeds must reflect accurate details to establish rightful title.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The defendants have filed the present appeal against the reversing judgment passed by learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur on 30.08.2018 followed by decree in RFA No. 104 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 16.09.2010 followed by decree passed by leaned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Title Suit No. 56 of 1997 was set aside.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in the form of removal of alleged unauthorised construction over the suit property with incidental reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, briefly stated, is that the suit property was purchased by them in the year 1992 from Janaki Pasupalak and Rama Chandra Pasupalak each under a different sale deed. While plaintiff No.1 purchased 30 feet x 60 feet out of plot Nos. 610/2362 and 610/2363 under Khata No.734 and 282 respectively vide RSD No. 4643 dated 27.10.1992. Plaintiff No.2 being the brother of Plaintiff No.1 purchased 30 feet x 60 feet including 15 feet x 60 feet forming part of plot No. 610/2363 from Janaki Pasupalak vide RSD No. 4642 dated 27.10.1992. Further, plaintiff No.2 sold 15 feet x 60 feet of such property to plaintiff No.1 vide RSD No. 4496 of 2000 and delivered possession. At that time he came to know that said portion of his purchased property measuring 15 feet x 60 feet was wrongly recorded in the name of one Amita Mohapatra in Plot No. 2363/2864 under Khata No. 1030/622. Nevertheless after purchase of land measuring 15 feet x 60 feet from plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 and her husband possessed the entire suit land measuring 45 feet x 60 feet by fencing the same. It is alleged that on 07.05.1995 they were forcibly dispossessed by both the defendants. Defendants thereafter raised boundary wall and plinth points on the suit land by removing the fence put by plaintiff No.1 and that they have been raising false claim over the suit property on the basis of manipulated records. It is stated that the vendors of the plaintiff, Janaki Pasupalak and Ramachandra Pasupalak had purchased lands to the extent of 45 feet x 75 feet and 10 feet x 75 feet each vide RSD No. 140 dated 19.01.16972 and RSD No. 142 dated 19.0.1978 respectively from the original owner Krushna Panda which they possessed till 27.10.1992 when they sold the same to the plaintiffs. It is alleged that after filing of the suit, the plaintiffs came to know that Tahasildar, Berhampur mutated the suit lands vide order dated 30.03.1992 in favour of defendant No.2 and opened a new Khata No. 1036/87, which was challenged by the plaintiffs.

5. The case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to one Krushna Chandra Panda, who sold the same to one Sunita Padhi through RSD No. 495/1985. Said Sunita Padhi sold the same to Defendant No.2 vide RSD No. 888/1987. Defendant No.2 applied for mutation, which was allowed in his favour and the land was recorded in his name in a separate Khata. The defendants dispute the description of the suit land as per the plaint schedule on the ground that the boundaries stated therein are not correct. Their specific case is that Rama Chandra Pasupalak and Janaki Pasupalak, vendors of the plaintiffs had no right, title or possession to alienate the land in favour of the plaintiffs and the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs are only paper transactions. Rama Chandra Pasupalak did not have any balance land towards north of the plaintiff No.1's land. Similarly, Janaki