HARIHAR BEHERA @ NARAHARI BEHERA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , being the respondent in F.A.O. No.1/2013, assails the judgment dated 12.4.2013 of the court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar allowing the appeal of the appellants i.e. the present opposite parties and injuncting the respondent i.e. the present petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellants over the suit land.

(2.) THE opposite parties as plaintiffs have filed C.S. No.877 of 2012 of the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction. In that civil suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity) was filed seeking temporary injunction against the present petitioner. The opposite parties claimed that they have purchased the suit property from the recorded owner Sailabala Mohapatra by registered sale deed dated 9.4.2012 and since then they are in possession over the same by constructing boundary wall all around and going ahead with further construction over the said land. It is stated that the present petitioner having no right has been creating disturbance in their possession by trying to interfere with it and causing obstruction in the construction work. They further claimed to have a prima facie case and state that balance of convenience leans in their favour by further stating that they would suffer irreparable loss in the event the present petitioner is not injuncted from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the present opposite parties.

(3.) THE respondent, i.e. the present petitioner, in his objection asserted that the petitioners, i.e. the present opposite parties, have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. He claimed that he, his mother and brothers are in possession of the same having right, title and interest by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29.7.1986 executed by one Kailash Ch. Rath, S/o. Duryodhan Rath. They claim to be in possession for last 26 years and carrying on paddy cultivation over the same. The court of first instance on going through the averments made in the plaint, application and objection and so also the documents filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the present opposite parties being the bona fide purchasers, record of right holders and being in possession of the suit land have a prima facie case. The court of original jurisdiction also went to observe that the present opposite parties have purchased the land and mutated the same in their names, but again stating that the present petitioner has also purchased the suit land by virtue of the sale deed has gone to pass an order of status quo. In that view of the matter, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), held that since both the parties are claiming their possession, an order of status quo is the only option and, accordingly, directed that the parties shall maintain status quo over the suit land.