Boundary disputes between adjacent landowners are civil matters and can be adjudicated under the Specific Relief Act, establishing the courts' jurisdiction over such claims.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

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

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 and respondents before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No. 21 of 2025.

The respondents in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 and appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.21 of 2025.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondents in this 2^nd appeal), vide C.S. No.532 of 2024 against the defendants (appellants in this 2^nd 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 unde