1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No. 109 of 2016. By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant being the unsuccessful Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 153/507 of 2013-2011 under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in dismissing the suit filed by the present Appellant and decreeing the counter claim filed by the present Respondent have been confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff's case is that he is the elder brother of the Defendant. Originally, the suit land under Plot No. 493/2921 appertaining to Khata No. 707/281 of Mouza-Bhimpur under Airfield Police-station now within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar originally stood recorded in the name of the Defendant as the owner. The Defendant, being in urgent need of money for repayment of loan and to meet his other legal necessities, approached the Plaintiff for purchase of an area of Ac. 0.050 dec. out of the total area Ac. 0.100 dec under that one plot. The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, consideration was fixed at Rs. 7,00,000/- which was paid in advance to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. The Defendant then executed the registered sale deed bearing No. 1605 dated 17.02.2007 in favour of the Plaintiff and pursuant to the same, the possession of the land sold was delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims to be in possession of the said purchase land since the time of his purchase.

It is further stated that the entire land is surrounded by boundary wall and lies in a compact block. The purchased land of the Plaintiff is the vacant land and the remaining area which is just the half is of the Defendant. As per the Plaintiff's case, he had purchased the land measuring Ac. 0.050 dec. towards the northern side and it is also stated that there is only one entrance to the entire block covering the suit land as sold as well as the unsold land. It has been further pleaded that the Defendant, who was then working as Coin Notes Examiner in Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata, being of higher status in the society then the Plaintiff attempted to sale the suit land to the outsiders. The Defendant somehow managed to obtain the record of right in his favour in respect of the land shown in the schedule of the plaint. He, therefore, apprehended that he may be dispossessed from the land. So, he filed the suit to restrain the Defendant from alienating the suit schedule land and entering into the suit land with the alternative prayer that if Plaintiff would be found to have been forcibly dispossessed by the Defendant during pendency of the suit, for restoration of possession.

4. The Defendant, while traversing the plaint averments, asserted that the Plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. It is stated that the Plaintiff being the elder brother of the Defendant, on his request, the Defendant sold an area of Ac. 0.050 dec. from southern side out of total area Ac. 0.100 dec. to the Plaintiff by registered-sale deed dated 17.02.2007 as per sketch map appended to it but the rest area of Ac. 0.050 dec. was lying vacant on the northern side, which is in his absolute possession having its m