Trial courts must decide all issues raised in a suit, and failure to do so renders judgments unsustainable. Appellate courts must review all issues, not just those identified in trial court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The Appellant in this Second Appeal was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2012 and he was the appellant in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.06 of 2014.

The Respondent in this Second Appeal was the defendant in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2012 and he was the Respondent in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.06 of 2014.

The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.20 of 2012 was a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. As per the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint, the properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint vide Khata No.172 Plot No.5101 Ac.0.53 decimals & Plot No.5034/6116 Ac.0.06 decimals in total Ac0.59 decimals in mouza Darlipali under the jurisdiction of Bhasma police station in the District of Sundargarh has been recorded in his name i.e. in the name of plaintiff and he (plaintiff) had/has been possessing the same being the exclusive owner thereof on payment of land revenue to the Government. The defendant has no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the same. Though, the defendant has no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties, but, when, on dated 04.09.2012, he (defendant) threatened him (plaintiff) to evict him (plaintiff) forcibly from the suit properties, then, he (plaintiff) approached the civil court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2012 against the defendant praying for declaration of his title over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant permanently from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit properties, inalternative for recovery of possession, if he (plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed forcibly from the suit properties by the defendant during the pendency of the suit.

4. Having been noticed from the Court in C.S. No.20 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff, the defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint by stating that, the suit properties belongs to him (defendant) and the said properties have been recorded in his name i.e. in the name of the defendant. The name of his father is Jogendra Patel. In sabik settlement, the suit properties were recorded in the name of his father i.e. Jogendra Patel. The suit properties have never been transferred either by his father or by him (defendant) to the plaintiff at any point of time in any manner. The suit properties are under his possession since the time of his father. As the name of the plaintiff is similar with the name of his father and as the name of the plaintiff is Jogendra Patel and the father’s name of the defendant is Jogendra Patel, for which, by taking the advantage of the similarity of the name of plaintiff with the father’s name of the defendant, he (plaintiff) had managed to record the suit properties wrongly in his name in the Hal settlement. When, such fact about the wrong recording of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff came to the knowledge of the defendant, he (defendant) filed a mutation case before the local Tahasildar for deletion of the name of the plaintiff and for recording of the same in his name i.e. in the name of the defendant. Then after making due enquiry, the Tahasildar mutated the suit properties into his name i.e. into the name of the defendant and prepared the mutated R.o.R. of the suit properties in the name of the defenda