A Registering Authority must safeguard against unlawful property transfers and cannot autonomously confirm title based on assertions of adverse possession without a competent court's declaration.

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Angul in RFA No. 20 of 2016. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 232 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Talcher with the prayer to direct the Appellant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) to register the sale deed executed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4)."

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. Plaintiffs-case is that a patch of land measuring Ac. 0.82 dec. under Plot No. 649 appertaining to Khata No. 202 of Mauza-Dandasingha although stands recorded in the name of the State under "Abada Jogya Anabadi" status. In the remark column of the record of right insofar as that plot is concerned, the possession of Plaintiff No. 2 and one other, namely, Kanduru Parida has been noted. It is stated that Kanduru has died leaving behind Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 as his legal representatives. It is further stated that after demise of Kanduru, the Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4, as his legal heirs have been continuing to possess the suit land. It is stated that they are in possession of the property in question from the year 1975. It is next stated that the possession has been with the fulfillment of all the legal requirements for acquisition of title over the said immovable property by way of adverse possession. Thus they state to be having the possessory title over the land in question as presented. So, it is stated that the title of the State over the property stood extinguished from the year 2006 and the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 have acquired the title over the suit land and their unlawful possession all through after expiry of the period of thirty years has become lawful. On 28.07.2007 they (Defendant Nos. 2 to 4) have executed a sale transferring the suit land in her favour of Plaintiff No. 1 for valuable consideration followed by delivery of possession. The Plaintiff No. 1 said to be is in possession of the suit land since that time onwards. When the position stood thus, on 28.07.2007 the sale deed being executed by Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the Plaintiff No. 1 being presented before the Defendant No. 1, the Sub-Registrar, Talcher for registration, he refused to register the document. Then that order was questioned by filing Misc. (Registration) Appeal No. 7 of 2008 before the Defendant No. 2, the District Registrar, Angul. The Appeal stood dismissed. So, the Plaintiff filed the suit arraigning the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority as parties seeking a direction for registration of the said sale deed.

4. The Defendants by fling the written statement have stated that when the property in question is recorded in the name of the State Government under "Abada Jogya Anabadi" status being reserved for Jawans of Odisha and as the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 claim to have the ownership, which they want to exchange for a price with the Plaintiff No. 1, the State ought to have been made a party as in its absence, the ownership of the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 over the property as claimed by them cannot be decided, which is the condition precedent for the sale deed to be so registered. It is further stated that it was beyond the scope of the Defendants to sit upon and decide the possessory or prescriptive title as claimed by the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 over the said land,