IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RSA No.300 of 2011

[In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of CPC from the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2011 passed in RFA No. 23/2009 by the Additional District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Parlakhemundi in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2009]

AFR Sudam Sahukar …. Appellant

-Versus-

Dasamukhi Appalaswami …. Respondent

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:

For the Appellant :M/s. Biplab Mohanty, T.K. Pattnaik,

A. Patnaik, S. Patnaik & R.P. Ray,

Advocates.

For Respondent :Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

28^th November, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment dated

12.05.2011 followed by decree passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Parlakhemundi in RFA No.23 of 2009,

whereby the judgment dated 13.10.2009 followed by decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in C.S. No.3 of 2009 was reversed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and permanent injunction. His case, briefly stated, is that the suit land standing on Plot No.648/1418 appertaining to Khata No. 142 in Mouza Padampur was recorded in his name. It was lying vacant. The defendant made an attempt to construct a house over it by stating that he had purchased the said land from one Mangal Bhuyan and Mangal Bhuyan, in turn, had supposedly purchased the land from one Braja Rout. Both were scheduled tribes. The plaintiff had a case with the defendant relating to a piece of land before the Officer on Special Duty under Regulation II of 1956, Parlakhemundi. The defendant declared on 05.12.2008 that he had purchased the suit land and therefore, he was constructing the house. Hence, the suit.

4. Pursuant to summons, the defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was stated that the case before the Officer on Special Duty being RMC No. 102 of 1978 under Regulation II of 1956 was initiated against one Braja Rout. The plaintiff was evicted as per order passed on 17.11.1978. The plaintiff never challenged the order of eviction. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The suit land consists of a dwelling house and a shop room, wherein the defendant and his brother have been residing. The father of the plaintiff donated the same properties to the defendant for performing seva puja of the deity and after his death, the plaintiff demanded the usufructs of the land from the defendant. When the defendant refused, the plaintiff filed the suit only to harass the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant belongs to ‘Mahali’ caste which is synonymous to ‘Jangam’. As such, the suit is not maintainable. The suit was also stated to be not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as also was undervalued. The maintainability of the suit was also questioned on the ground of limitation.

5. On such rival pleadings the trial court framed the following issues for determination.

“1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Is the suit under-valued?

3. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

5. Is the plaintiff having right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

6. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought for?”

6. Taking up issue No.5 at the outset, the trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence found that a case was initiated on the recommendation of the Welfare Extension Officer with regard to alienation of the land, wherein it was held that the petitioner of the said case was a member of the scheduled tribe while the respondent was a member of non-scheduled tribe. As such, the order of eviction was passed. However, the trial Court found that the said order does