A permanent injunction suit is not maintainable when complicated questions of title arise, necessitating separate declaratory proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. These Appellants, in this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) assail the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 & 26.12.2018, respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur in RFA No. 16 of 2017.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the predecessor of these Appellants being aggrieved Defendant in Title Suit No.174 of 1983 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur under Section-96 of the Code has been dismissed.

The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the original Appellants (Defendant) so as to restrain him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land by the Plaintiffs. The suit having been decreed the Defendant aggrieved by the same had carried the Appeal under Section-96 of the Code which too has been dismissed. The original Appellant having died during pendency of First Appeal, his legal representatives are pursued the Appeal and they now have filed this Second Appeal.

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 Suit.

3. Plaintiffs case is that one Uma Bewa was the original owner of the suit land and she has sold the suit land to Bai Behera, the father of the Plaintiff by registered sale-deed dated 24.12.1958 for consideration of Rs.600/- with a condition that if she would repay the consideration amount within a period of five (5) years to the Plaintiff, she would be entitled to repurchase the suit land. It is stated that pursuant to the execution of said registered sale-deed, possession of the suit land had been delivered to that Bai Behera. Since Uma did not exercise her right to repurchase the suit property within the stipulated time period term of five years or even thereafter during her lifetime, the said right stood extinguished. Bai Behera thus possessed the suit openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of Uma Bewa and Nityananda Naik, the original Defendant. It is further stated that Bai Behera having possessed the suit land openly, peacefully and continuously without any interruption had perfected the title over the suit land by way of adverse of possession and the Defendant had no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Since the Defendant then created disturbance in the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff over the land in question, the suit was filed.

4. The Defendant in his written statement while denying the plaint averments has stated that Uma was an illiterate and pardanashin lady and taking advantage of that Bai Behera had created the deed dated 12.11.1983 by practising fraud. Uma in face had mortgaged the suit land for a loan of Rs.600/- in order to clear up her debt, for her maintenance and to meet the expenses for a pilgrimage with a condition that on repayment of the principal with interest @ 9% per annum within five years, she would get back the property. The amount being repaid in the year 1962, the deed in question was not returned on some pretext or other. She later on has executed a deed of gift in favour of the Defendant and delivered possession of the said land. Th