MOHANLAL AGARWAL Vs. RAGHUNATH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 20.7.2017, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S. No.324/194 of 2015/2012, whereby and whereunder, learned trial court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC and directed the defendant nos.1 and 2 to begin first.

(2.) Plaintiffs-opposite party nos.1 to 5 instituted the suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that the suit land was khasmahal land. On 6.12.1922, the Collector, Puri granted lease in favour of one Gadadhar Sahoo for a period of thirty years. The lessee could not pay the land revenue. Therefore, the property was put to auction. One Lokanath Mishra purchased the suit property in auction sale. He sold the same to one Prasanna Kumari Dei in the year 1941. Subsequently, Prasanna Kumari Dei executed a gift deed in favour of Golak Bihari Kanungo. After purchase, Golak Bihari Kanungo renovated the building standing over the suit land. He let out the same to plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and father of other plaintiffs on monthly rent. In the last settlement, the same was recorded in the name of State of Odisha under Anabadi Khata with a note of possession of Golak Bihari Kanungo. The plaintiffs had constructed different shop rooms. They were running the business. They used to pay rent to the landlord Golak Bihari Kanungo. They were in possession of the shop rooms peacefully, continuously and with the knowledge of all. While matter stood thus, one Sui Bai filed an application before the Tahasildar, Puri Sadar for settlement of the land in her name in B.P.L. No.92/95 stating that she had purchased the suit land in the Execution Case No.206 of 1965. The plaintiffs filed objection to the same. By order dated 14.05.1997, the Tahasildar, Puri Sadar cancelled the lease granted in favour of Sui Bai and sent the case records to the Collector, Puri for resumption of the suit plot. It is further pleaded that on 02.04.2012, the defendant nos.1 to 4 damaged the entire shop rooms by means of bulldozer and dispossessed the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendant nos.1 and 2 filed written statement stating that their mother was the owner of the suit property on the strength of a mortgage deed. Possession of the suit property was delivered to their mother in Execution Case No.206 of 1965. The defendants let out the premises to different persons. For eviction of one Laxman Pradhan, their mother instituted the C.S. No.61 of 1997. Laxman had also instituted T.S. No.100 of 1997. The right, title, interest and possession of their mother was declared. Two appeals were filed before the learned District Judge, Puri. The same having been dismissed, S.A. nos.497 and 498 of 2007 had been filed before this Court. Possession was taken through the process of the Court in Execution Case No.07 of 2012. After taking possession of the original building, which was in dilapidated condition, was demolished. Their mother had executed two gift deeds in their favour in respect of the suit property on 07.03.2011. They are the owners.