ANEI PARIDA Vs. GIRIDHARI BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1992 modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur in Title Suit No. 163 of 1987.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.2 from disturbing his possession over the suit Schedule land. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs Narahari Biswal died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Madhu and Bidei. Bidei died leaving behind his sons, namely, Kangali. Madhu died leaving his sons Sridhar and Giridhari. Sridhar died leaving his sons Mayadhar, Sankar and Makara. All the properties of Narahari were recorded jointly in the names of sons of Madhu and Bidei. During the consolidation operation the parties were allotted two chakas, vide Chaka No.16, Khata No.24, Plot No.20 with an area of 42 decimals and Chaka No.71, Khata No.24, Plot No.87 with an area of 74 decimals. The defendant No.2 was allotted with Chaka No.59, under consolidation Khata No. 15, plot No. 73, area of Ac. 0.68 decimals situated adjacent to the North of the plaintiffs Chaka No.71. The lands were measured in presence of both the parties by the Consolidation authorities and delivered chakas to them. The plaintiffs accepted delivery of possession of Chaka No. 71, Plot No.87, area of Ac. 0.74 decimals; whereas the other chakas situated in plot No. 73 an area of 68 decimals was delivered to the defendant. The lands have been demarcated. After such demarcation the plaintiffs found that they were delivered less extent than what was recorded in the consolidation record of rights. Therefore, they applied for demarcation by an Amin from the Tahasil Office, vide Demarcation Case No. 118/87. The Tahasil Amin measured the lands allotted to the plaintiffs and detected that they are in possession of Ac. 0.74 decimals which has been reflected correctly in the R.O.R. prepared by the consolidation authorities. But in the map it has been incorrectly shown that Ac. 0.52 decimals of land is said to have been in possession of the plaintiffs in stead of Ac. 0.74 decimals. Therefore, the dispute arose for which the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction.

(3.) THE plaintiff -Respondents were not served with any notice because of passing this order neither party shall be affected. The decree of permanent injunction passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court is hereby maintained. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.