C A V JUDGMENT

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J .

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2019 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Civil Suit No.29-A/2017, whereby the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the appellant/plaintiff, are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction in respect of Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 3484/1, area 8.615 hectare. Within this area, the suit property specifically comprises a portion measuring 23 feet in length and 18.9 in width, situated at Village Baloda, Ward No.4, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). The disputed land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, son of Dulaku Ram Dewangan. The plaintiff is the cultivator and in possession of the said land, which was originally acquired by his father from one Gajraj, son of Devnath Dewangan through a registered sale-deed dated 11.12.1993 (Ex.P/1). Since that date, the plaintiff and his predecessor have remained in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property. In the year 2006, defendants 1 to 6 attempted to take possession of the land under the pretext of constructing a stage for cultural programme through the Nagar Panchayat, Balauda. The plaintiff objected to this interference and submitted a written complaint to the President of the concerned Nagar Panchayat. It is further contended that defendants 1 to 6 by use of force and with the assistance of the concerned authorities, are attempting to construct a stage for cultural program upon the disputed land. Since suit property is in lawful title and possession of the plaintiff, he was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from such illegal interference.

3. Defendants 1 to 6 filed their written statement, categorically denying the material allegations made in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff possesses no right, title or interest in the suit property, and therefore, is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Unless and until it is established that the defendants are attempting to encroach upon the plaintiff’s land, a decree for permanent injunction cannot be passed. Since the appellant/ plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the title holder or in lawful possession of the land in question, the defendants cannot be restrained by way of permanent injunction and accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendants 7 & 8 also filed their separate written statement denying the plaint averments. They pleaded that the plaintiff has neither title to nor possession of the suit property. It was further averred that the defendants have constructed a stage upon Abadi land and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction without proving both title and settled possession. In fact, the suit itself is wholly misconceived and filed on vexatious grounds and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has dismissed the plaintiff’s suit by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property.

4. Mr. Ankita Goswami, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. PKPatel, Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff ishaving clear title over the suit property, which is evident from theregistered sale-deed (Ex.P/1) executed in favour of the plaintiff’spredecessor way back on 11.12.1933. She submits that based on this registered document, the plaintiff has remained in continuous and peaceful possession of the property. The defendants started interfering with the said possession when the plaintiff commenced construction over the suit land. After the objections raised by the private defendants, respondents 7 & 8 issued a show cause notice directing the plaintiff to remove the building materials co