SASHI BEWA AND OTHERS Vs. BIMAL CHANDRA SARANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against an affirming judgment.

(2.) Respondent as plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 67 of 1987 in the court of the learned Munsif, Khurda for permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property appertains to Hal Khata No. 656, plot No. 2294-Ac.0.225 dec. of mouza-Jajarsingh belonged to Dinabandhu Mishra. Dinabandhu purchased the same in a certificate of sale and was all along in possession thereof. The land was mutated in his name under Khata No. 660/1. Out of the total Ac.0.225 dec., he sold away Ac.0.072 dec. to the plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 29.01.1979 for a valid consideration & delivered possession. The plaintiff mutated the same in his name. While matter stood thus, Dinabandhu sold away the northern side of Ac.0.072 dec. out of the total area Ac.0.225 to one Radhaballav Das for consideration and delivered possession. Radhaballav Das mutated that property in his name. The same was recorded in his name under a separate plot No. 2294/3138. On 27.04.1981, Radhaballav Das sold away that Ac.0.072 dec. appertaining to plot No. 2294/3138 to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner and in possession of entire Ac.0.144 dec., appertaining to Khata No. 648/173. The plaintiff constructed his residential house over the same after taking permission from Bhubaneswar Improvement Trust as well as N.A.C., Khurda. He and his family members are residing in that house. He was paying rent and holding tax in respect to that house. He is a Government servant for which he is to remain outside from Khurda. Taking advantage of his absence, defendant no.2 and 3 demolished his western boundary wall and threatened to encroach a portion of the suit property and to dispossess him from over the same. With this factual scenario, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 entered appearance and filed their written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that they are Harijans by caste. The suit property is their ancestral property. The vendor of the plaintiff purchased the same without permission of the competent authority. Thus the plaintiff cannot claim any title over the suit property. Neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff himself was/is in possession over the suit property. The sale is in void. They are possessing the suit property. Their residential house stands over the same. The defendant nos.8 & 9 were set ex parte.