Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. Behera, J.
Gokulananda Baishakh and another - Appellants
Versus
Surendra Patra and another - Respondents
R.S.A. No.221 of 2025
Decided On : 26-02-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. T. K. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate.
A suit for property boundary demarcation and injunction is maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, reflecting law's support of civil disputes between adjacent landowners.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34 - Dispute over property demarcation and permanent injunction - Suit filed for religious demarcation of boundaries and injunction against encroachment - The suit was found maintainable as it addressed civil disputes relating to property boundaries without being expressly or impliedly barred by law. (Paras 16, 18)
(B) Injunctive Relief - Permanent injunction granted to plaintiffs against defendants to prevent entry into Schedule 'A' properties as plaintiffs established ownership and possession, negating any claims by the defendants. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed ownership of Schedule 'A' properties and asserted that defendants were attempting to encroach on their land. Defendants contested, claiming their ownership of Schedule 'B' properties and arguing that the suit was not maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The 1st Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting their established rights and possession over Schedule 'A', confirming the necessity for demarcation and injunction.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the suit, the existence of a cause of action, and whether boundary tenants were necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was of a civil nature regarding a boundary dispute and thus maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, supporting the plaintiffs' claims and injunctive relief.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved and nature of the suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding ownership and encroachment (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. legal reasoning on maintainability of demarcation suit (Para 15 , 17) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeal (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 and respondents before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.21 of 2025.
The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.21 of 2025.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondents in this 2nd appeal), vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 against the defendants (appellants in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for demarcation and permanent injunction.
4. As per the case of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) are the owners of Schedule ‘A’ properties, the defendants are the owners of Schedule ‘B’ properties.
Schedule ‘A’ properties stands recorded in favour of the plaintiffs and Schedule ‘B’ properties stands recorded in favour of the defendants.
The properties in the Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ are different and separate plots in the R.o.Rs as well as in the village map.
The plot in Schedule ‘A’ and the plot in the Schedule ‘B’ are situated being adjacent to each other. At present, there is no sign of demarcating boundary line between Schedule ‘A’ properties of the plaintiffs and Schedule ‘B’ properties of the defendants.
So, taking the advantage of the absence of middle boundary between Schedule ‘A’ properties, the defendants tried to encroach the properties of the plaintiffs described in Schedule ‘A’ from its western portion in a north & south direction without any measurement, for which, the plaintiffs requested the defendants for demarcation of the middle boundary line between the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’, but the defendants did not agree for the same, rather they (defendants) tried to encroach the lands of the plaintiffs described in Schedule ‘A’ forcibly.
For which, without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 against the defendants praying for demarcation of boundary between Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties through Survey Knowing Civil Court Amin Commissioner and to injunct the defendants permanently from raising any pucca construction over their properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint and not to change the nature and character of the same in any manner before demarcation and to pass any other decree/relief in their favour, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for.
5. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying the above allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint against them (defendants) taking their stands inter alia therein without disputing the ownership of the plaintiffs over the plots described in Schedule ‘A’ as well as their ownership i.e. the ownership of the defendants over the plots described in Schedule ‘B’ stating that, Their specific case was that,
“in the year 2014, their hamlet Parabil was declared as separate revenue village by the Settlement Authorities and Parabil was separated from village Dharina and new village map was prepared accordingly without changing the nature and character of the plots. Map was prepared during the 1987-88 consolidation operation.
In the year 2020-21, the Revenue Authority prepared new village map, wherein the plot numbers indicated in the previous village map of the year 1987-88 were changed. The defendant No.1 (Gokulananda Baishakha) filed an appeal under Section 12 o
