LAXMIKANTA SAHOO Vs. ARUN KUMAR SAHOO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kendrapara in F.A.O. No.49 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that plaintiff-opposite party no.1 instituted C.S. No.1283 of 2013 in the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kendrapara for partition against his father and brothers pleading inter alia that the suit property was purchased by his father, defendant no.2, out of joint family fund. The suit property is the joint family property. Plaintiff filed I.A. No.649 of 2013 for injunction to restrain his father from alienating the suit property. The petition was dismissed with a finding that the suit property is the self- acquired property of his father. Thereafter, he filed another suit being C.S. No.269 of 2015 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara for partition, declaration that the sale deed dated 10.4.2015 executed by his father in favour of defendant no.1 is void and illegal, permanent injunction and certain other ancillary reliefs. It was pleaded that the suit land was purchased out of joint family fund. In an amicable partition, he got Ac.0.015.5 kadi and has raised two pucca rooms over the same. He filed an application, i.e., I.A. No.54 of 2016 under Order 31 Rule 1 C.P.C. to injunct the defendant no.1 from demolishing the construction and making any construction over the suit plot. The defendant no.1 has filed objection stating that the suit land was purchased by defendant no.2 on 11.12.1979 when the plaintiff was a minor. The same was the self-acquired property of defendant no.2. The land was recorded in favour of defendant no.2 in the consolidation ROR. The defendant no.1 has purchased the suit land with the constructions made thereon. He demolished the old construction and constructed a building upto roof level. The trial court allowed the petition and restrained the defendant no.1 from demolishing the pucca house and wall of the asbestos rooms over the suit land and from constructing any house over any portion of the suit land. The unsuccessful defendant no.1 filed F.A.O. No.49 of 2016 in the court of the District Judge, Kendrapara. The appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land.

(3.) Heard Mr. N.C. Pati along with Mr. B. Das, learned Advocates for the petitioner. None appeared for the opposite party no.1.