NABEKISHORE SAHU Vs. EAST INDIA ARMS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Puri, in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1989 confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar (presently designed as Civil Judge, Senior Division) passed in Misc. Case No. 161 of 1987 whereby the plaintiffs'prayer for temporary injunction was refused.

(2.) The plantiffs have filed Title Suit No. 170 of 1987 against the General Administration Department (defendant No. 1) Director of Estates, General Administration Department, Government of Orissa, and M/s. East India Arms Company Chourangi Road, Calcutta, (defendant No. 3) praying for recognition of their tenancy right, confirmation of possession and other ancillary reliefs in respect of an area measuring 150' x 31' appertaining to plot No. 96, Kharabela Nagar, Unit 3, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). Their case, in brief is that the suit land originally belonged to the General Administration Department, Government of Orissa. In 1955, fathers of the plaintiffs in order to earn their livelihood constructed temporary house with asbestos and thatched roof on the suit land and opened confectionary and grocery shops. During their life time they approached the defendants 1 and 2 for settling the same by way of lease in their favour, but no decision was taken to that effect. However, they continued to possess the suit land til their death and after them, the plaintiffs have been possessing without any disturbance from any quarter. Suddenly on 6-5-1987 some of the employees of defendant No. 3 came to the shop of the plaintiff's and threatened to vacate the suit land since it has been settled in favour of defendant No. 3. Apprehending forcible dispossession by defendant No. 3, they filed the suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid.

(3.) Defendant No. 3, the main contestant in the suit, countered the plaint averments and contended, inter alia, that the State of Orissa being the owner of the suit land settled in its favour a period of 90 years by a registered deed of lease dated 19-12-1984 and put it in possession. For constructing a house on the suit land defendant No. 3 applied to the authorities for sanction of the plan and simultaneously collected building materials and stacked on the suit land. As the sanction of the plan was delayed, defendant No. 3 searched for a person to watch the materials. The plaintiffs being roadside hawkers voluntarily offered themselves to watch the suit land as also the materials lying there and sought permission from defendant No. 3 to transact their business on the side of the suit land instead of hawking on the road side. In course of time, however, they raised temporary shed on a portion of the suit land with the permission of defendant No. 3 on condition that they would remove the structure and vacate the land as and when required. Since the Directors of defendant No. 3 are the residents of Calcutta, taking advantage of their absence the plaintiffs subsequently effected some improvements on the temporary shed originally raised. The plaintiffs were then asked to remove the shed and give vacant possession as agreed upon but they did not. Instead they approached the civil Court and filed the aforesaid suit making all false and frivolous allegations.