IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

S.A. No.70 of 1995

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Iswar Patra @ Iswar Chandra …. Appellants

Patra (since dead through his LRs)

-versus-

Asamani Patra …. Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Appellants - Mr. Prabhav Behera,

Advocate.

On behalf of

Mr. D. K. Mishra,

Advocate.

For Respondent - D. P. Mohanty,

Advocate. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :19.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the

reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.99 of 1987 and respondents before the 1^st

Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.8 of 1990.

The respondent in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.99 of 1987 and appellant before the

1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.8 of 1990.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendant (respondent in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs as per their pleadings in their plaint in nutshell against the defendant was that, the suit properties are Ac0.25 decimals of Plot No.596 under Khata No.7 in Mouza Bhuasuni, which were described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. The suit Plot No.596 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.339.

As per the case of the plaintiffs, Chamu Patra had four sons, namely, Parikhita Patra, Krishna Patra, Krushna Patra and Bisu Patra. The plaintiffs are the sons of Bisu Patra.

Parikhita Patra was the brother of Bisu Patra.

Parikhita Patra died leaving behind his son Dassarathi Patra.

Dassarathi Patra died leaving behind his daughter Asamani Patra (defendant).

Bisu Patra was the separated brother of Parikhita Patra.

The suit properties were the properties of Bisu Patra, in which, neither Parikhita Patra nor his son Dassarathi Patra or his daughter Asamani Patra (defendant) had/has any interest. Asamani Patra (defendant) had no land to construct a house for her residential purpose, but she (Asamani Patra-defendant) was allowed by the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Bisu Patra to construct a house on the suit properties and to reside there. As per the permission granted by the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Bisu Patra, the defendant (Asamani Patra) constructed a house on the suit properties and stayed in that house. For which, her possession over the suit properties is purely permissive in nature and the said permissive nature of possession of the defendant (Asamani Patra) cannot create any interest in her favour in the suit properties. The suit properties in the Sabik settlement were recorded in favour of the plaintiffs. But, during Hal settlement, the suit properties were erroneously recorded in the name of the defendant (Asamani Patra). Such recording of the suit properties in the Hal settlement in the name of Asamani Patra (defendant) is illegal and erroneous. As, Asamani Patra was/is possessing the suit properties on permission granted by the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Bisu Patra, for which, the Settlement Authorities should not have recorded the suit properties in the name of the defendant (Asamani Patra), because the plaintiffs are the owners of the same and as per law, they are in actual possession over the same. When, Asamani Patra did not leave the suit properties under the possession of the plaintiffs, then without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.99 of 1987 against the defendant (Asamani Patra) praying for a declaration that, they (plaintiffs) are the owners of the ‘A’ Schedule suit properties and also to declare that, the recording of the suit properties in the Hal R.o.R. in the name of Asamani Patra (defendant) is illegal and to direct the defendant (Asamani Patra) to deliver the possessi