HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

RSA No.384 of 2017

In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned

District Judge, Balasore in RFA No.59 of 2014.

………

Sri Ananta Jena @ Ananta Prasad Jena

::::

Appellant.

-:: VERSUS ::-

Sri Markanda Singh & Others

::::

Respondents.

Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement

(virtual/physical) mode.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant

…

Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents

…

None

------

P R E S E N T :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 03.11.2021

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the

judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in

RFA No.59 of 2014.

By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court while

allowing the First Appeal under section 96 of the Code filed by the

{{ 2 }}

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) has set aside the judgment and

decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore in

C.S. No. 192 of 2005-I. The suit for declaration of the right, title and

interest of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) over the suit land and

confirmation of their possession; in further injuncting the Appellant

(Defendant No.1) and Respondent No. 5 (Defendant No.2) from

creating any sorts of disturbance in peaceful possession of the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) over the suit land having been

dismissed by the Trial Court, the same has been reversed by the First

Appellate Court and finally, the suit has been decreed.

2.

For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring

in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been

arraigned in the Trial Court.

3.

The Plaintiffs’ case in short is that the suit land originally

belonged to one Kangali Jena and it stood recorded in his name in the

record of Major Settlement Khata No. 26. Said Kangali Jena has sold the

property in question to the Plaintiffs by obtaining necessary permission

from the Competent Authority as required under section 22 of the Orissa

Land Reforms Act (OLR Act) in OLR Permission Case No. 49 of 1977.

For the purpose, Kangali Jena had executed the registered sale deed on

21.02.1983 and had delivered the possession of the suit land to the

{{ 3 }}

Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Plaintiffs since the time of purchase have

been continuing with their possession and paying rent to the State.

It is their case that they being rustic villagers were unaware about

the settlement operation and in view of their absence at different stages

of the settlement operation, the suit land continued to be recorded in the

name of Kangali Jena without noting the change of hands. Taking

advantage of said wrong recording in Raghupati Settlement in the name

of Kangali Jena, the defendants with help of same mischievous persons

threatened to dispossess the Plaintiffs. Being apprehensive of said

dispossession, the Plaintiffs then only could ascertain about such

erroneous recording of the land in the name of Kangali Jena. It is said

that the Defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and

possession over the suit land. Thus the suit has come to be filed.

4.

The Defendants entering appearance in the suit in their written

statement while traversing the plaint averments have pleaded that their

grandfather Kangali Jena had never sold the suit land to the Plaintiffs

and at no point of time, he has executed the said sale deed. It is stated

that the suit