BHOLESWAR SAHU Vs. RAMA CH BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 3 are the petitioners. Plaintiff-opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 79 of 1997 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior, Division), Angul, for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.6.1994 executed by defendant No 1 in favour of defendant No. 3 is null and void and for permanently injuncting defendants 2 and 3 from coming over the disputed plot and restraining them from making any further construction over the disputed plot and other reliefs. The disputed land is AC 0.20 decimals from the middle portion of southern side of Ac.0.67 decimals in plot No 292, khata No 281. The two plaintiffs and defendant No 1 are three brothers. It is claimed in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant No 1 succeeded to the disputed plot No. 292 after death of their parents. It is further claimed that the said property is the joint family property and there has been no partition by metes and bounds and for convenience, the plaintiffs have constructed a residential house on part of the disputed plot. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 has illegally sold the disputed land to defendant No.3. Subsequently, when the plaintiffs found that defendants 2 and 3 were making preparation for construction of house on the disputed land, a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, was initiated and subsequently, the said proceeding having been dropped, the suit was filed after the Summer Vacation of the year 1997.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed joint written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was claimed that the parties were separate in mess and property and after partition, the parties were enjoying their respective portions separately

(3.) During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, had been filed wherein initially the trial court had passed an order directing both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land. Subsequently, after hearing the parties the trial court confirmed the order of status quo. In appeal, the said order having been affirmed, the present Civil Revision has been filed