Orissa High Court
Jyotshnarani Mishra vs Purna Chandra Mishra & Another on 13 November, 2023
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
RSA No.295 of 2016
In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in RFA No.38 of 2010 in
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Dhenkanal in Title Suit No.123 of 1999.
.........
Jyotshnarani Mishra :::: Appellant.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Purna Chandra Mishra & Another :::: Respondents
Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant ... Mr.S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate For Respondents ... Mr. M. Mishra, Sr. Advocate Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate (R.1)
------
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 10.10.2023 :: Date of Judgment:13.11.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No. 38 of 2010.
The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed Title Suit No.123 of 1999 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal arraigning the Appellant and Respondent No.2 as the {{ 2 }} Defendants and one Ram Deo Laxminarayan as the 3rd Defendant, who having died during pendency of the suit, his name has been expunged as dead. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession with further prayer of permanent injunction over the land measuring Ac.0.04 dec. under Sabik Khata No.15, Plot No.263 corresponding to Hal Khata No.22, Plot No.256, an area of 6 ft. x 8 ft. and Hal Khata No.6, Plot No.257 of an area of 16 ft. x 80 ft. The suit having been decreed, this Appellant being the aggrieved Defendant No.1 had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code, which has also been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff's case is that the land as noted above originally belonged to one Sachidananda Singh who transferred the same by way of sale to Lalit Mohan Nanda. Pursuant to said transaction, mutation was carried out in the year 1944 and Lalit Mohan became the absolute owner of the said land and possessed the same which was in total Ac.01.25 dec. under Sabik Khata No.15 vide Plot No.263, Mouza-Ichhadeipur. Lalit Mohan being the owner of the said land, thereafter sold portions of it to different persons. The present suit land extending to Ac.0.04 dec had been purchased by Md. Abdul Reheman from Lalit Mohan by registered sale deed of the year 1962. Md. Abdul Reheman thereafter sold the suit Page 2 of 20 {{ 3 }} land to the deceased, Defendant no.3, namely, Ram Deo Laxminarayan since dead, by registered sale deed dated 25.09.1962.
The Plaintiff states that he thereafter on 15.04.1986 entered into an agreement for sale with the Defendant No.3 for an agreed consideration of Rs.10,000/- The Plaintiff thereafter since that date remained in possession of the suit land. He planted a number of fruit bearing trees over the said land. When the matter stood thus and the Plaintiff was in peaceful possession for a continuous period, he came to know that during Hal Settlement Operation, no separate plot in respect of the suit land had been carved out. In spite of repeated request, the Defendant No.3 did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff as agreed upon. It then came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that an area of 6 ft x 80 ft has been wrongly emalgamated with the eastern side of Hal Plot No.256 belonging to the Defendant No.1 and the remaining portion of 16 ft x 18 ft with the western side of Plot No.257 belonging to Defendant No.2.
Be that as it may, the Plaintiff continued to be in possession of the said land as before notwithstanding the recoding in the Hal Settlement. It is stated that the dispute arose when Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0.05 dec. of land from Hal Plot No.255/369 from out of Sabik Plot No.263 from the successors of Lalit Mohan Nanda by a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1999. His further case is that there was no such land Page 3 of 20 {{ 4 }} under Plot No.255/369 in existence in the field. However, Defendant No.1 on the strength of her said purchase started claiming a portion of the suit land as her purchased land. It is alleged in the said process, Defendant No.1 knowingly fully well that she had no right, title and interest over the suit land on 29.09.1999, tried to dig foundation on the suit land by force. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking the reliefs as afore-stated.
4. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not come forward to contest the suit and were set ex parte.
5. The Defendant No.1 in her written statement while traversing the plaint averments has stated that the case projected by the Plaintiff is wholly imaginary based on false plain paper document dated 15.04.1986 which besides being unstamped and unregistered is a created and forged one. Therefore, it is said that said document cannot come to the rescue of the Plaintiff in seeking the relief in this suit. It is further pleaded that she has been in possession of the purchased land and has never encroached the land of the Plaintiff. The claim of the Plaintiff that a portion of a suit land has been amalgamated with her land is totally baseless. It is also stated that the suit land is unidentifiable. The area of land under possession of Defendant No.1 appertaining to Hal KhaNo.256 has been mutated in her name and accordingly, her plot during the Hal Settlement was carved out in the Hal Map. It is asserted Page 4 of 20 {{ 5 }} that the Plaintiff at no point of time has ever possessed any portion of land under Sabik Khata No.253 and he having colluded with the Defendant No.2 with a bid to harass this Defendant No.1 has filed the suit seeking the relief.
It is stated that Lalit Mohan had sold an area of Ac.0.04 dec. of land from out of Sabik Plot No.263 to Askara Stree by registered sale deed of the year 1962. The said purchaser then sold the same to one Malaya Mohanty by executing registered sale deed. Malaya Mohanty in turn sold the said land to two persons, namely, Mansingh Mohanty (Defendant No.2) and Umarani Mohanty; two decimals each. It is further asserted that there was the purchase of Ac.0.07 dec. of land out of Sabik Plot No.263 by Nimai Chandra Mohanty from Lalit Mohan Nanda by registered sale deed dated 24.10.1962 and said Nimai Chandra Mohanty had sold the land to one Gangarani Sen by registered sale deed dated 17.07.1963, who sold the same to one Sudam Pal on 27.12.63 by executing registered sale deed to that effect. The Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the entire Ac.0.07 dec. of land on 21.05.1976 by registered sale deed from that Sudam Pal. Having said all these above, the Defendant No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings has framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? Page 5 of 20
{{ 6 }} (2) Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action to file the present suit?
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties or mis-joinder of parties?
(4) Whether the suit is barred under limitation? (5) Whether the Plaintiff has acquired title from his vendor on the basis of the unregistered deed of agreement for sale by adverse possession?
(6) Whether the Plaintiff is in possession over the suit land? (7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction against the Defendant?
(8) Whether the suit is bad for identity?
(9) To what other relief the Plaintiff is entitled?
7. Taking up Issue Nos.5, 6 and 7 together for decision as those relate to the claim of the Plaintiff as to have acquired title over the suit land by the unregistered deed of agreement for sale by way of adverse possession and consequential entitlement of the Plaintiff to the relief of injunction against the Defendants; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, the answer has been rendered as under:-
The Plaintiff himself, the scribe and one of the identifying witness have been examined on behalf of the Plaintiff as P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively, who have fully corroborated the execution of Ext.1 Page 6 of 20 {{ 7 }} by D-3 in favour of the Plaintiff on 15.04.1986 and delivery of possession given to the Plaintiff. They along with the rest P.Ws. have further substantiated the claim of the Plaintiff regarding his continuous possession pursuant to the execution of such agreement for sale by D.3. P.W.5 being the husband of Defendant No.2 has also stated supporting the version of the rest P.Ws. regarding the execution of Ext.1 and the long possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. Such prolonged possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 in the desired manner. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 nor her witness could properly destabilize the claim of the Plaintiff regarding such long possession over the suit property. They could not establish the claim of possession either by Defendant No.1 or any other person legally over the suit property. Rather Defendant No.1 while being examined as D.W.1 during her cross-examination at para-9 admitted that there is a gap of land measuring Ac.12 which exists to the eastern boundary of her Plot No.256. Defendant No.2 being the adjacent plot owner of Hal Plot No.257 had not come forward to disprove the possession factor of the Plaintiff on the suit land or the existence of a vacant land to the eastern boundary of Plot No.256 and to her western boundary. The Amin Commissioner's report marked Ext.C-IX goes to show that the Hal Plot No.256 measures A.0.07 decimals and the Hal Plot No.257 measures Page 7 of 20 {{ 8 }} A.0.04 dec, which are the part and parcel of the sabik Plot No.263. His report further goes to show that one vacant space having southern side breadth of 28 kadi and Northern side breadth of 22 kadi with east-west length Ac.01.40 kadi is available on the middle portion of Hal Plot No.256 and 257. It is further mentioned in the report that the southern 22 kadi appertains to Hal Plot No.256 and 6 kadi appertains to Plot No.257. Similarly the Northern side of such vacant space appertains to plot No.256 but does not touch plot No.257. Hence, the final opinion was adduced by C.W.1 that the vacant space measuring A.03.01 decimals from Hal Plot No.257, finally measuring Ac.3.5 decimals from Hal Plot No.256 and A0.04 decimals from Hal Plot No.257, finally measuring A0.3.5 decimals in all. From Ext.D,C,E and B it is found that one Lalitmohan Nanda had sold A0.07 decimals of land to Nimai Charan Mishra, who sold it to Gangarani Sen, who again sold it to Sudam Pal and finally he sold the same to Defendant No.1 respectively.
The Amin's report quite matches to the total measurement of land purchased by the Defendant No.1 in Hal Plot No.256 but the vacant space found adjoining to the extreme east of that plot could be carved out which is in addition to Plot No.256".
8. Then coming to the Issue No.8 as to the identity of the suit land and the suit being hit under the provision contained in Order 7 Rule 3 Page 8 of 20 {{ 9 }} and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, the answer has been given in favour of the Plaintiff by repelling the objections raised by the Defendant No.1.
The Issue Nos.2 and 4 as to the lack of cause of action and limitation standing on the way of entertainment of the suit have also been answered in favour of the Plaintiff.
Lastly, Issue No.1 concerning the maintainability of the suit has been held in favour of the Plaintiff and thereafter the objection of the Defendant No.1 as to the non-joinder of necessary party under Issue No.1 has been repelled.
9. Finally, the Trial Court has decreed the suit with the following order:-
"The suit be and the same is decreed in part on contest against the Defendant No.1 and ex-parte against Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 (dead). There is no cost awarded in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. D-1 and D-2 are permanently injuncted from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff over the land measuring A0.03 decimals 5 kadi extending from the eastern boundary of Hal Plot No.256 and the western of Hal Plot No.257 in Mouza-Ichhadeipur under Hal Khata No.22 and 6 in any manner whatsoever as the Plaintiff is found to be in possession over the said piece of land".
10. The Defendant No.1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court carried the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court in addressing the rival contentions appears to Page 9 of 20 {{ 10 }} have travelled through the evidence as had been narrated by the Trial Court and the conclusion of the Appellate Court are culled out as under:-
"But in the present case Defendant No.1 is not the original owner who gave the possession of the Plaintiff. So the principle laid down in the afore-mention cited decision is not applicable to the present fact and circumstances of the case. In the present case Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land whereas Defendant No.1 is not possessing te same. In the above circumstances the learned Lower Court has rightly applied the principle laid down in the decision reported in 2003 SAR (Civil) 543 Supreme Court in a matter between Ramesh Chand Ardwatiya Panjawai and held that Defendant No.1 having no right title, interest and possession over the suit land cannot be allowed either to dispossess or to threaten the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. The lower Court has also rightly observed that neither D-1 nor D-2 had ever claimed their right, title, interest and possession of the suit land which is an extra space lying vacant on the joint middle portion of Hal Plot No.256 and 257".
11. Lastly with regard to the identify of the suit land; the First Appellate Court has said the followings:-
"The identify of suit land on the bias of boundaries given in the sale deed in comparing the same to the Amin report and the evidence of tbhe P.Ws. and D.Ws. the learned Lower Court while deciding Issue No.8 has rightly hold that the suit plot is having specific identify. Accordingly rejected the prayer of Defendant No.1 to reject the plaitn under Order-7 Rule-3 of C.PC. Regarding non-joinder of necessary parties Plaintiff had made Defendant No.3 from whom she got possession and against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are disturbing in her possession against whom reliefs is claimed so there is no necessity to make the vendor of Defendant No.3 to be a party".
Page 10 of 20
{{ 11 }}
12. The present Second Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial questions of law:-
(1) Whether the courts below in the suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction could have legally passed the decree for permanent injunction on the face of their finding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for declaration of title and further without recording a clear decision on the claim of Defendant No.1 as having the title over that property and that too merely basing upon the so-called deed of agreement of sale Ext.1 and holding that the possession has flowed to the Plaintiff by virtue of the same without any finding as to Plaintiff's right to possess?
(2) Whether in the suit the courts below were under legal obligation to decide the question of title over the suit land as claimed by the Defendant No.1 and his right to possess as such as the condition precedent for grant of a decree of permanent injunction?"
13. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant No.1) submitted that in the present suit as laid by the Plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, the Courts below when have declined to rule in favour of the grant of relief of declaration of title since the relief of confirmation of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land is dependent upon the grant of title over the suit land in his favour, the Courts below ought not to have decreed the suit granting the relief of permanent injunction to the Plaintiff in injuncting the Defendant No.1 and 2 from interfering with his possession in respect of Page 11 of 20 {{ 12 }} the land measuring Ac.0.03 dec 5 kadi extending from the eastern boundary of Hal Plot No.256 and the Western boundary of Hal Plot No.257 of Mouza-Ichhadeipur under Hal Khata No.22 and 6 without confirming the possession of the Plaintiff over the said land being its rightful owner having the title and thus the right to possess especially on the face of the claim of the Defendant No.1 from the very beginning that he is in possession of the same as its owner and title holder by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.05.1976. He further submitted that the Courts below having not decided the question of title over the suit land as claimed by the Defendant No.1 and thus his right to possess the same are not right in granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant No.1 in any manner. He submitted that in the present case the Defendant No.1 has not come up with a case of mere possession of the suit land since long but it is her case that she having purchased the property from the lawful owner and being delivered with the possession of the same having the right to possess is possessing the same. He, therefore, submitted that the Courts below have committed the fundamental error of law by decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff in part by simply granting him the relief of permanent injunction as against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
14. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) submitted all in favour of the findings returned by the Page 12 of 20 {{ 13 }} Courts below in ultimately granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession of the land in question in any manner. He further submitted that the Courts below on detail discussion of evidence on record including the evidence of the Amin Commissioner and his report when have concurrently found the Plaintiff to be in possession of the land in question, no fault can be found with the decree of permanent injunction passed by the Courts below.
15. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also perused the plaint, written statement and have gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by the parties.
16. The Plaintiff instituted the suit on 14.10.1999 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) that the right, title and interest of the suit schedule land be declared in favour of the Plaintiff;
(b)that the schedule land be demarcated through the process of court before declaration;
(c) that the possession of the Plaintiff over suit schedule land be confirmed;
(d) that the Defendants and their man and agents be permanently injuncted not to disturb the possession of the Plaintiff in any manner;
(e) that any other relief/reliefs deem proper be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for ends of justice and cost of the suit;
(f) that the Plaintiff be recovered the possession of the suit land if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit."
Page 13 of 20
{{ 14 }}
17. The land schedule given in the plaint is as follows:-
LAND SCHEDULE District: -Dhenkanal.
P.S. :Town.
Village:-Ichhadeipur
Sabik Khata No. Sabik Plot No. Area
15 263 A.0.04 decimals out
of total area of
Ac.1.25 decimals
(middle portion corresponding to:-Hal
Plot No.256 (Eastern portion about 6' X
80') under Hal Khata No.22)
AND
Hal Plot No.257 (Western portion about
16' X 80") under Hal Khata No.6
SKETCH MAP (Not to Scale)
(N)
Plaintiff's land under dispute
==================================== To Cuttack
==================================== (Railway track)
6'
(W) Plot No.256 X 16' X 80'
Plot No.257 (E)
80'
N.H. 42 to Cuttack
18. The Courts below have refused to declare the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule land. The Courts below have also refused to pass a decree of confirmation of possession of the Page 14 of 20 {{ 15 }} Plaintiff over the schedule land. The relief granted to the Plaintiff is as under:-
"The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are permanently injuncted from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff over the land measuring Ac.0.03 dec. 5 kadi extending from the eastern boundary of Hal Plot No.256 and the western of Hal Plot No.257 in Mouza-Ichhadeiput under Hal Khata No.22 and 6 in any manner."
19. The very case of the Plaintiff is that one Sachidananda Singh was the original recorded owner in possession of the land under Sabik Plot No.263 measuring Ac.1.25 dec. assigning to Khata No.15 bounded by Sabik Plot No.261 and 262. The land was thereafter mutated in the name of Lalit Mohan Nanda on 23,05.1944 in view of his purchase and that continued in the year 1961 whereafter he started selling the lands in different parts to various purchasers on different dates. His case is that one Abdul Reheman had purchased an area of Ac.0.04 dec. out of the middle portions of Sabik Plot No.263 on 20.03.1962 and had taken delivery of possession and continued to remain in possession. The land bounded by Askar Stree (Askara Behera) at the East, Lalit Mohan's land at the West, Railway boundary at the North, Cuttack-Sambalpur NH 42 at the South and thereafter said Abdul Reheman sold the land to Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3), who came to possess the same Page 15 of 20 {{ 16 }} with the identical boundary and it was so possessed by him till 1986. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that he in order to purchase the said schedule land entered into an agreement for sale with Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) on 15.04.1986. Admittedly pursuant to the said agreement for sale, no registered sale deed has come into being. It is further stated that the Plaintiff began to possess the land being so delivered by Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) pursuant to the said deed of agreement for sale.
20. The Plaintiff further states in paragraph-6 of the plaint as under:-
"That astonishingly on inquiry about the avoidance of the vendor to register the sale deed, it was ascertained by the Plaintiff that no Hal Plot has been carved out nor record of right has been prepared in favour of Ram Deo Laxminarayan during Hal Settlement Operation".
It is further stated that the same was not done as Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) could not participate during the settlement operation.
Be that as it may, it has been averred that several approaches being made, the vendor Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) after the execution of the agreement for sale did not pay any heed to regularize the sale through registration. The Plaintiff states that he having remained in possession of the suit land since the date of the agreement for sale between himself and Ram Deo Laxminarayan Page 16 of 20 {{ 17 }} (Defendant No.3) has perfected title over the same by way of adverse possession.
21. The Plaintiff's claim is that of acquisition of title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and he admits the title of Ram Deo Laxminarayan, who according to him, was having the title over the said land, which now is stated to have been extinguished. Plaintiff's possession on the basis of that agreement for sale even if accepted for a moment and it is also said that he has been continuing with the same, the nature of possession is to be taken to be permissive as the Plaintiff has neither pleaded nor deposed on oath as to from which date shunning the character as that of a proposed vendee, he began to possess the suit land as its owner in denying the title of Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) by claiming title unto himself. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly refused to pass a decree declaring the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the said land.
22. The Plaintiff as against the said agreement for sale dated 15.04.1986 has filed the suit in the year 1999. The agreement for sale has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1. The schedule of land described in the agreement for sale is as per the description of the land as it was in the sabik record. One rough sketch map is given at the foot of the said agreement showing the boundary of the said land when the fact remains that by that time the preparation of the record of right and Page 17 of 20 {{ 18 }} the map in the Hal Settlement Operation was underway awaiting the final publication. At the same time, it is stated in the plaint at paragraph- 4 that during the possession of the suit land by Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3), the settlement operation started and that Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) been to his native place in the State of Rajasthan and from that place could not take step for getting his purchased land recorded in his name in the Hal settlement records. The Plaintiff nowhere in the plaint had pleaded that having entered into the possession of the said property being so delivered by Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) pursuant to the execution of the agreement for sale, he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the failure on the part of that Ram Deo Laxminarayan to perform his part of the contract was the sole reason for the registered sale deed not coming into being.
The Plaintiff examined as P.W.1 has again stated that in the year 1989-90, the settlement operation started and neither Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) nor he (Plaintiff) took step at that time for proper recording of the suit land. It is further stated that Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) then left for his native place and thereafter did not come to execute the sale deed in spite of request and then on subsequent verification, the Plaintiff learnt that the plot which was covered under the agreement for sale standing in his favour has not Page 18 of 20 {{ 19 }} been carved out in the hal settlement map. In such state of affair in the pleading, in the plaint as well as the evidence of the Plaintiff even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land (the land which he wanted to purchase), he cannot get his possession protected with the aid of the provision contained in section 53A of the Specific Relief Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff in his deposition although has stated that he had requested Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) several times for executing the sale deed has not breathed a word that he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Ram Deo Laxminarayan (Defendant No.3) was alive when the Plaintiff deposed on oath on 21.08.2003. It has been stated by P.W.1 that the Defendant No.3 has a son. This Defendant No.3 has not appeared in the suit and it is said by the Plaintiff that he had not approached the Defendant No.3 to file the written statement. In view of all these above, the Court below in the present suit are right in refusing to pass a decree of confirmation of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land.
The Plaintiff's claim of decree of declaration of right, title, interest and possession having been refused in the present suit when the Defendant No.1 from the very beginning is asserting her title and possession over the suit land as the lawful purchaser of the same and that purchase as per her own case is prior to the institution of the suit, Page 19 of 20 {{ 20 }} the Court's below should not have passed a decree in permanently injuncting the Defendant No.1 in the present suit as laid from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land whose very right to possess the same as per his case when had flowed from that transaction under Ext.1 which is not recognizable as such in the eye of law.
The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered against the Plaintiff which in turn leads to non-suit the Plaintiff in holding that he is not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as has been granted by the Courts below.
23. Resultantly, the Appeal stands allowed. No order as to cost.
(D. Dash), Judge.
Himansu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Nov-2023 18:49:20 Page 20 of 20