In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish actual possession, which suffices for relief regardless of ownership disputes, supported by evidence of rent receipts and mutation orders.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The Appellant and the Respondent of this Second Appeal were the plaintiff and defendant in T.S. No.27 of 1985 and they were the respondent and appellant respectively in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.16 of 1987.

3. The suit of the plaintiff-Dama Maharana (Appellant in this Second Appeal) against the defendant- Dhoba Rout (Respondent in this Second Appeal), was a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter.

4. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell as per the averments made in his plaint vide T.S. No.27 of 1985 was that, he (plaintiff) by virtue of his purchase to the suit land under registered sale deed dated 27.02.1985 vide Ext.1 from Narayana Das became the owner over the suit land and remained in possession of the same.

After purchasing the suit land, he (plaintiff) being the owner thereof raised vegetable crops on the same, but surprisingly on dated 08.07.1985 the defendant having no interest in the suit land created disturbance in his peaceful possession over the suit land and tried to enter into the suit land, for which, he (plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1985 against the defendant praying for restraining him (defendant) permanently from entering into the suit land and from creating any sort of disturbance in his possession over the suit land.

5. Having been noticed from the Court in T.S. No.27 of 1985, the defendant contested the same by filing his written statement after taking his stands inter alia therein that, as per amicable partition between the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Narayana Das and his three brothers, the suit land along with other lands measuring area of Ac.0.55 dec were allotted into the share of Trinath Das and the said Trinath Das had allowed him (defendant) to cultivate the same through execution of one Muchulika vide Ext.B/1 after taking Rs.300/- as an advance towards premium for the year 1985. Accordingly, the defendant has been possessing the suit land since 1985. The plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land. So, the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint are all false. The so-called sale deed dated 27.02.1985 said to have been executed by the Narayana Das in favour of the plaintiff is not binding upon him (defendant).Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

The further case of the defendant was that, the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. Narayana Das and Trilochan Das. So, according to the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether four number of issues were framed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.27 of 1985 and the said issues are:-

Issues

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has title to and possession over the suit land?

(iii) Is the plaintiff liable to be permanently injuncted?

(iv) What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant, he (plaintiff) examined three witnesses from his side including him as P.W.1 and relied upon series of documents on his behalf vide Ext.1 to Ext.4/D. But, on contrary, the defendant examined two witnesses on his behalf including him as D.W.2 and relied upon several documents from his sid