BHIMA NAYAK Vs. CHITTARANJAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the opposite parties are not present. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and this civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) PLAINTIFF in Title Suit No. 12 of 2002 is the petitioner in this civil revision. He challenged to the order dated 27.3.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda, and the confirming order vide judgment dated 30.7.2002 in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2002 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Khurda. The aforesaid Misc. case was under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 12 of 2002 seeking for interim injunction against the defendantsopposite parties with respect to Plot No. 2290 under Khata No. 341 of Mouza Jajarsingh measuring an area of Ac. 0.120 decimals, which is admittedly a homestead land.

(3.) DEFENDANTS entered appearance and resisted to the prayer for interim injunction and disclosed their plea that the above named Jai Nayak on 6.2.1954 transferred the suit property in favour of one Kamala Satya, who continued to possess the same peacefully with right, title and interest. After purchasing that property, when Kamala Satya came to know that Jai Nayak was not the exclusive owner and was jointly recorded with others. he got another sale deed executed on 12.4.1954 by Jai Nayak and his agnets and thereafter peacefully possessed the property as of right and in 1959 raised foundations of five rooms over the disputed property. On 14.8.1959 said Kamala Satya transferred the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 for consideration and since that date defendant No. 1 is in possession of the property with right, title and interest. He has further stated that he applied for mutation and that was contested by the present plaintiff along with some of his agnets and after due inquiry in Mutation Case No. 179 of 1986 'Patta was prepared in favour of defendant No. 1 as Plot No. 2290/369 and Khata No. 648/642. When the defendant through the power of attorney wanted to carry on some repair works on the existing structure, a dispute arose and Title Suit No. 39 of 1960 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Khurda as against the present Defendant No. 1 and others. Father of the plaintiff was also party to that suit. That suit was disposed of upholding validity of the alienation of the property in favour of defendant No. 1, and Title Appeal No.175 of 1961 preferred as against that judgment was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. Defendant No. 1 has also stated that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was initiated, in which, as per the decision of this Court in a criminal revision, possession of defendant No.1 has been upheld. Defendants alleged that all such material facts were not brought to the notice of the Court in Title Suit No. 63 of 1991 and Title Appeal No. 3 of 1993 and that decree was obtained behind the back of defendant No. 1 as he was not added as a party -defendant in that suit. Defendants further alleged that plaintiff has sought for the relief of temporary and permanent injunction by suppressing all such material facts.