Identification of suit property is crucial for passing an executable decree; lack of clarity on property boundaries leads to dismissal of the suit under Order-7, Rule-3 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.16 of 1989 and appellants before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.04 of 1998.

3. The respondents in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.16 of 1989 and respondents before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.04 of 1998.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2^nd appeal) before the trial court vide T.S. No.16 of 1989 was a suit for declaration as well as permanent and mandatory injunction.

5. The suit land is Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.624 decimals of Hal Plot No.1002 under Hal Khata No.114 in Mouza Tolankabereni under Bhuban Tahasil in the district of Dhenkanal.

According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties along with other properties were originally belonged to one Nidhi Behera. The said Nidhi Behera died leaving behind his three sons, i.e., Darsani Behera, Baishnaba Behera and Agadi Behera. After the death of Nidhi Behera, the suit properties along with other properties left by him devolved upon his above three sons, i.e., Darsani Behera, Baishnaba Behera and Agadi Behera.

The suit properties correspond to parts of Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152. Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 as per Sabik Settlement Map of the year 1923-1924 were contiguous plots.

The area of Sabik Plot No.140 was Ac.0.60 decimals, the area of Sabik Plot No.141 was Ac.0.48 decimals and the area of Sabik Plot No.152 was Ac.0.19 decimals, the total area of Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 under Sabik Khata No.62 as per Sabik RoR of the year 1923- 1924 in the name of Nidhi Behera were Ac.1.27 decimals.

When, three sons of Nidhi Behera, i.e., Darsani Behera, Baishnaba Behera and Agadi Behera were possessing Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 along with their other properties jointly being the successors of their father Nidhi Behera, they(Darsani, Baishnaba and Agadi) divided their all joint properties including Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 among them.

In such division/partition, the suit properties, those are the parts of Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 along with some other properties had fallen in the share of Darsani Behera and Baishnaba Behera. Darsani Behera is the father of the defendant no.1. The said Darsani Behera and Baishnaba Behera sold total Ac.0.52 decimals of land from Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 to the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 26.06.1993. Though the plaintiffs purchased Ac.0.52 decimals in total from Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 through sale deed dated 26.06.1993 from Darsani Behera and Baishnaba Behera, but, since the said date of their purchase, i.e., since 26.06.1993, they (plaintiffs) actually possessed Ac.0.67 decimals of land of Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 in total Ac.0.67 decimals including their purchased Ac.0.52 decimals to the knowledge of their vendors, i.e., Darsani Behea and Baishnaba Behera and others. As such, they(plaintiffs) are in continuous possession over Ac.0.67 decimals of land from Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 since 26.06.1993. Accordingly, they(plaintiffs) have been possessing excess Ac.0.15 decimals of land then their purchased Ac.0.52 decimals of land from Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152. For which, they(plaintiffs) have acquired their title through adverse possession over that excess Ac.0.15 decimals of land over Sabik Plot Nos.140, 141 and 152 and they (plaintiffs) have also constructed their residential houses on the same. But, the Hal R