PRAHALLAD @ PAHALI SAMAL Vs. SULOCHANA SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in RFA No. 19 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujang in C.S. No. 26 of 2004.

(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 court below.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land as per the sabik settlement stood recorded in the name of Sricharan Mohapatra and others. Father of defendant no. 1 and 2 namely, Doli Samal and Babaji Samal got Ac. 0.20 decimals of land under that sabik plot in OLR Case No. 1870 of 1975 from Sricharan Mohapatra and remained in possession of the same to the knowledge of all concerned. It is stated that sons of Doli alienated Ac. 0.9 decimals in favour of the father of plaintiff no. 2, 3 and father of the plaintiff no. 4 by registered sale-deed dated 19.01.1981 and he further sold Ac. 0.8 decimals in favour of that plaintiff no. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 30.08.1980. It is asserted that after purchase, they remained in peaceful possession of those lands. It is also stated that one Chandramani Samal got Ac. 0.4 decimals of land from Sricharan Mohapatra in OLR Case No. 238 of 1975 from the land under that sabik plot and he alienated the said land in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 06.06.1978. Plaintiff no. 1 in turn alienated the said purchased land together with other lands in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and father of plaintiff no. 4 by registered sale-deed dated 24.07.1978 and they have been possessing the said land. It is stated that they have constructed their residential house over the suit land and mutated the same in their favour vide Mutation Case No. 29 of 2003 and 29(3) of 2003 and have been accordingly paying rent. As the defendants without any right threatened them with dispossession, they filed the suit for permanent injunction as aforesaid.