PRAHARAJ PALATASINGH Vs. ARJUNA FATESINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the affirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Jagannath Rath. The plaintiff and defendant no.3 purchased the same from Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed. They are in possession of the suit land. They used to grow paddy and seasonal vegetables over the same. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. They created disturbance in their possession.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, plaintiff and defendant no.3 had purchased sabik plot no.573 which corresponds to hal plot no.507. Sabik plot no.563 had been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed. Possession of the suit land had not been delivered to them. It was further pleaded that one Dambarudhar Samantaray was the original owner of sabik plot nos.573 and 56 He sold sabik plot no.573 to one Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed dated 8.9.1953, Ext.4. Instead of plot no.573, plot no.563 had been mentioned in the sale deed. Thereafter, Jagannath Rath sold the suit land to the plaintiff and defendant no. According to them, they are in possession of sabik plot no.563, whereas plaintiff and defendant no.3 are in possession of sabik plot no.57