SURESH MAJHI Vs. CHAITANYA CHARAN MAHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2007 and 2/1/2008 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar, in R.F.A. No.5 of 2007. By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the Appeal filed by these Appellants under Sec. 96 of the Code, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Keonjhar in C.s. No.24 of 2004. Thus, the suit filed by the Respondent as the Plaintiff as against the present Appellants arraigning them as the Defendants has been decreed granting the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff in restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants are permanently from entering upon the suit land and causing damage to the same. These Appellants-Defendants have also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.650.00 towards the damage.

(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 Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case, in short, is that the suit land originally belonged to the Deity Sri Baladevjew Bije Nizgarh. The Endowment Commissioner, Odisha having permitted to sell the suit land, the Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Debottar, Keonjhar sold the land to the Plaintiff by registered sale deed no.1405 of 1989. It is stated that after due demarcation of the ;suit land, the possession of the same was delivered to the Plaintiff and accordingly, he is in possession of the same since the year 1989 and has been raising paddy etc. It is further stated that on the strength of the registered sale deed and the possession pursuant to the same, the land in the suit has been mutated in his name and accordingly, he is paying the land revenue to the State. The Defendants being strangers are having no right, title and interest or possession over the suit land. Being rowdy in nature, it is alleged that all of a sudden, they came over the suit land on 26/7/2004 and damaged the pillars put by the Plaintiff over the land. The Defendants did not listen to the protest. The matter was then reported at the Police Station and as no such action was taken, the suit for the relief, as stated above, has been filed.