BATAKRUSHNA BARIK Vs. ABHAYA KUMAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 14/3/2007 promulgated in R.F.A. No.5 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, whereby, the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.94 of 2002 was confirmed on the grounds inter alia that the findings of the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in law and hence, liable to be set aside.

(2.) The respondents as plaintiffs instituted the suit in T.S. No.94 of 2002 seeking a relief of permanent injunction against the appellant vis-"-vis the suit schedule land claiming title over the same. The appellant as defendant entered in appearance and filed W.S. and though admitted the title of the original owner but claimed possession over and in respect of the suit schedule land since 1932 which is from the time of his grandfather and from then to be in possession continuously with the full knowledge of the respondents. In other words, the appellant disputed the possession of the land in question by the respondents, however, advanced no counter claim. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur framed major issues as to if the respondents are entitled for a decree of injunction in absence of declaration of title and possession and whether the appellant to be in possession of the suit schedule land from 1932 and discussed the evidence adduced by both the sides and finally, decreed the suit restraining the appellant permanently from interfering with the possession by the respondents. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the appellant with regard to possession and decreed the suit on contest but without cost. Being unsuccessful, the appellant approached the learned Lower Appellate Court in R.F.A. No. 05 of 2005 but the same was dismissed by impugned judgment and decree dtd. 14/3/2007.

(3.) Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradhan-2, learned counsel for the respondents.