UPENDRA DAS Vs. KRUSHNA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case may be stated in short. Plaintiffs are the petitioners, Padan das and Laxman Das (opposite party No. 2) were two brothers. Opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of Laxman Das, Padan Das was the admitted owner of the suit properties measuring 0. 54 acre. Out of this. 0. 17 acre is in Khata No. 455 and 0. 37 acre in Khata No. 581. Suka is the daughter of Padan Das. On 15th of october 1930, Padan sold the disputed lands to one Sadei Sahu. On 25th of august 1954, Sadei, in his turn, sold the disputed lands to Laxman Das. On 21-51963 suka sold the disputed lands to the plaintiffs. Laxman filed Title Suit No. 89 of 1963 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession against the plaintiffs. On 22nd of August 1963 that suit was compromised. In the compromise decree the title of the plaintiffs was declared and their possession was confirmed. On 27-12-1968 Laxman sold 0. 37 acre to Krushna Sahu (opposite party no. 1 ). Out of 0. 37 acre. 0. 03 acre was out of Khata No. 455 and 0. 34 acre out of Khata no. 581. On 8-8-1969 he filed Title Suit No. 247 of 1969 for setting aside the compromise decree in T. S. No. 89/63.

(2.) TITLE Suit No. 51 of 1969 was filed by the petitioners on 11-4-1969. On 12-41969 they filed an application for interim Injunction under Order 39. Rule 1 C. P. C. This application was allowed, by the First Munsif. Cuttack, on 7-11-69. The interim injunction was vacated by the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack, on 8th of December, 1970. It is against this order that the civil revision has been filed.

(3.) MR. Sinha places strong reliance on a passage in an unreported decision in Civil revn. No. 35 of 1963 (Orissa) (Baroia Setti v. Dadhibaban Swamy) in contending that where the disputed property is paddy land no interim injunction can be granted. The passage runs thus: