Orissa High Court
Procedure vs Lokanath Meswa And Another on 7 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.01 of 2002
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908)
Jagabandhu Badapanda .... Appellant
-versus-
Lokanath Meswa and another .... Respondents
Appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. N.C.
Pati, Advocate
For Respondents : None
Appeared in this case:-
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 05.04.2024 / date of judgment :07.05.2024
A.C. Behera, J. The 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming
judgment.
2. The appellant of this 2nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial
court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 and he was the appellant before
the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.02 of 2000.
// 2 //
3. The respondents of this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the
trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 and they were the
respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A.
No.02 of 2000.
4. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 before the trial
court was a suit for declaration and confirmation of possession, in
alternative for demolition of the structures, if the structures are made
forcibly by the defendants in the suit properties during the pendency of
the suit and also for recovery of possession of the suit properties, in case
the possession of the suit properties is taken away by the defendants
forcibly from the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and also for
permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering into his
possession in the suit properties.
5. As per the plaint of the plaintiff, the suit properties are non-
consolidable Plot No.360 Ac.0.420 decimals and non-consolidable Plot
No.365 Ac.0.480 decimals under Consolidation Khata No.73.
According to him(plaintiff), he(plaintiff) is the exclusive owner
and in possession over the suit properties and the suit properties covered
under Consolidation Khata No.73 has been recorded in his name
exclusively. The suit properties were also recorded in his name
// 3 //
exclusively in the 4th settlement under Khata No.40. During consolidation
operation, the defendants had claimed for recording the suit properties in
their names, but, their said claim was rejected by the consolidation
authorities and ultimately final consolidation RoR of the suit properties
was published in the name of the plaintiff under Consolidation Khata
No.73 after adjudicating/deciding the right, title and interest of the parties
in respect of the suit properties. But, in the final consolidation RoR of the
suit properties under Khata No.73, the possession of the defendants were
erroneously noted in the remarks column of suit Plot Nos.360 and 365. In
fact, the defendants were/are not in possession over any portion of the
suit plots. Consolidation authorities were not authorized under law to
note the possession of the defendants in the remarks column of the
consolidation RoR, in respect of the suit plots. For which, the said noting
of possession in favour of the defendants in the remarks column of the
suit plots are required to be ignored for all purposes. The suit properties
are situated by the side of the road, for which, the plaintiff has been using
the suit properties for multy purposes. When the defendants tried to make
construction on the suit properties forcibly by storing the building
construction materials near the same, then the plaintiff objected the same,
for which, the defendants could not able to make any construction on the
suit properties. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest
// 4 //
in the suit properties, because, neither the plaintiff nor any of his
ancestors has transferred the suit properties in favour of the defendants.
When the defendants are trying to make construction over the suit
properties forcibly, then, apprehending danger to the title of the plaintiff
by the threat of the defendants, he (plaintiff) approached the civil court
by filing the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 against the defendants praying
for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties and
to confirm his possession thereon and also to injunct the defendants
permanently from interfering into his possession over the suit properties,
in alternative, in case of any forcible construction by the defendants on
the suit properties during the pendency of the suit, the decree for
demolition of the said structures is to be passed and also for the decree
for recovery of possession of the suit properties is to be passed, if,
he(plaintiff) is dispossessed from the suit properties by the defendants
during the pendecy of the suit along with other relief, to which, he
(plaintiff) is entitled for, as the court deems fit and proper.
6. Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03
of 1997 filed by the plaintiff, the defendants challenged the same by
filing their joint written statement denying the allegations alleged by the
plaintiff against them by taking their stands specifically therein that, the
suit properties were originally belonged to Gokula Badpanda, who is the
// 5 //
father of the plaintiff. The suit properties along with some other
properties were allotted in favour of the plaintiff in his family settlement.
When the plaintiff was minor, his father alienated the suit properties
along with some other properties as a guardian of the plaintiff for the
benefit of the plaintiff to one Ayojeka Rajeswar Rao by executing and
registering Sale Deed No.3202 dated 24.12.1965 and its correction Deed
No.238 of 1967 followed by delivery of possession. Accordingly,
Ayojeka Rajeswar Rao after purchasing the suit properties from the
plaintiff, he was possessing the same.
Thereafter, in order to meet his legal necessities, the said, Ayojeka
Rajeswar Rao sold the suit Plot No.360, Ac.0.420 decimals to defendant
no.1 through registered Sale Deed No.642 dated 30.01.1974 and
delivered possession thereof. Since the date of purchase, the defendant
no.1 is in possession over that Ac.0.420 decimals of suit Plot No.360
having his house and threshing floor as well as bari on the same.
Thereafter, Ayojeka Rajeswar Rao sold suit Plot No.365 to the
defendant no.2 by executing and registering the Sale Deed No.644 dated
30.01.1974 and delivered possession thereof. As by the time of the
purchase, the defendant no.2 was minor, for which, the father of the
defendant no.2 has got the delivery of possession of the suit Plot No.365
from Ayojeka Rajeswar Rao on behalf of minor defendant no.2. Since the
// 6 //
date of aforesaid purchase, i.e., since 30.01.1974, he (defendant no.2)
became the exclusive owner over the suit Plot No.365 and since then, he
has been possessing that Plot No.365 by constructing his house thereon
and he has been using the same as his house, bari and threshing floor.
During consolidation operation, the consolidation authorities had no
power to decide the right and title of the parties in respect of the non-
consolidable suit properties. As during the consolidation operation, the
defendants could not produce their sale deeds due to missing of the same,
for which, consolidation authorities recorded the suit properties
erroneously in the name of the plaintiff, but, noted their possession in the
remarks column of the suit plots. He (defendant no.1) is paying the
electricity dues, because, he has taken electricity connection to his house
on the suit Plot No.360. So, they (defendants) have perfected their title
over the suit properties through adverse possession. Therefore, the suit of
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against them (defendants) with
costs, because, they (defendants) have right, title, interest and possession
over the suit properties and they (defendants) are the owners of the suit
properties by purchasing the same through registered Sale Deed Nos.642
and 644 dated 30.01.1974 and accordingly, they (defendants) have
perfected their title over the suit properties through adverse possession.
// 7 //
7. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies
between the parties, altogether seven numbers of issues were framed by
the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 and the said issues are:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff has got absolute right, title and
interest over the suit land?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
mandatory injunction for demolition of the structures
over the suit land?
3. Whether the defendants have acquired right, title and
interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession?
4. Whether the suit is grossly under-valued and court fees
paid is insufficient?
5. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
6. Is there any cause of action for the suit?
7. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
8. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the
plaintiff in his plaint vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 against the defendants, he
(plaintiff) examined three witnesses from his side including him as
P.W.1 and exhibited three documents vide Exts.1 to 3 on his behalf.
On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff,
the defendants examined four witnesses from their side including the
// 8 //
defendant nos.1 and 2 as D.Ws.4 and 3 and relied upon the documents
vide Exts.A to E on their behalf.
9. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials/
documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff on contest against the defendants, but, without
cost as per its judgment and decree dated 27.11.1999 and 16.12.1999
respectively assigning the reasons that, they(defendants) have perfected
their title over the suit properties through adverse possession, as the
plaintiff is not in the possession over the same, for which, he (plaintiff) is
not entitled to get any relief in the suit against the defendants.
10. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of
the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 against
the defendants passed by the trial court as per its judgment and decree on
dated 27.11.1999 and 16.12.1999 respectively, he (plaintiff) challenged
the same by preferring the 1st appeal being the appellant vide T.A. No.02
of 2000 against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as
respondents.
After hearing from both the sides, the 1st appellate court dismissed
that 1st appeal vide T.A. No.02 of 2000 of the plaintiff as per its
judgment and decree dated 05.10.2001 and 17.10.2001 respectively on
// 9 //
contest without cost concurring / accepting to the findings and
observations made by the trial court in its judgment and decree passed
against the appellant/plaintiff.
11. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the
dismissal of the 1st appeal of the plaintiff vide T.A. No.02 of 2000
passed by the 1st appellate court on dated 05.10.2001 and 17.10.2001
respectively, he (plaintiff) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd
appeal being the appellant against the defendants by arraying
them(defendants) as respondents.
12. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following
substantial questions of law :-
(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court and 1st appellate court in dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff ignoring the consolidation RoR in favour of the
plaintiff is sustainable under law?
(ii) Whether the findings and observations made by the trial
court and 1st appellate court for the dismissal of the suit
of the appellant(plaintiff) vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 on the
ground that, the defendants have acquired their right,
title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse
possession is sustainable under law?
// 10 //
13. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant
(plaintiff) only, as none appeared from the side of the respondents
(defendants) for the hearing of this 2nd appeal.
14. So far as the 1st formulated substantial question of law, i.e.,
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the 1st
appellate court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff ignoring the
consolidation RoR in favour of the defendants is sustainable under law is
concerned;
It is the undisputed case of the parties that, during consolidation
operation, the claim of the defendants for recording the suit properties in
their favour as the owners thereof was rejected and the claim of the
plaintiff for recording the suit properties in his name as the owner of the
same was accepted and the final consolidation RoR vide Khata No.73
(Ext.3) of the suit properties was published exclusively in the name of
the plaintiff. The said decision of the consolidation authorities for
recording the suit properties exclusively in the name of the plaintiff
under Consolidation Khata No.73 vide Ext.3 after rejecting the claims of
the defendants has not been varied/altered/set aside as yet, because that
order of the consolidation authorities has not been challenged by the
defendants before any higher forums under the Orissa Consolidation of
Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.
// 11 //
15. The law concerning the legal effect of the order passed by the
consolidation authorities for recording the non-consolidable properties
and noting of possession in the remarks column of the consolidation RoR
like this suit/appeal at hand has already been clarified by the Hon'ble
Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) 2009 (2) C.J.D.(HC)-71 : Purna Chandra Panda(dead)
through his legal heirs vrs. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Bije
Nizgaon and others--Orissa Consolidation of Holding and
Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972--Sections
2(g) and 4--Non-consolidable land--The decision taken by
the Consolidation Officer as to right, title, interest of non-
consolidable land would be valid in view of amendment of
Section 2(g) by Odissa Act No.2 of 1989 and the same is
applicable retrospectively. (Para-13)
(ii) 50(1980) CLT-337(F.B.) : Srinibas Jena (and after him)
Madhabananda Jena and others vrs. Janardan Jena and
others(para-6)--C.P.C.1908--Section 9 Civil Suit--Once,
the parties work out their rights before the consolidation
authority and exhaust their remedies under that Act, they
cannot re-agitate the same questions over and again in the
civil court, and that those questions stand finally concluded
by the decision of the consolidation authorities.
The decision of the consolidation authorities on the
question of right, title and interest, which are matters within
their jurisdiction would operate as res-judicata and that being
so, the civil court will have no jurisdiction to hear and decide
the suit afresh.
// 12 //
(iii) 2021(Vol-2) CLR-645 : Gita Mishra vrs. Premananda
Mishra and others--Record of Rights-- Value of--Record
of right prepared and finally published under the Orissa
Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act
holds good for the right, title and interest in respect of the
property so recorded therein in favour of the holder of the
said record of rights--Possession in respect of the suit land
also stands presumed in favour of holder of the record of
rights.(Para-9)
(iv) 2018(II) CLR-31 : Chhabi Bagh vrs. Saila Bagh(dead) and
others--Consolidation RoR--Value thereof--Consolidation
RoR holds good for right, title and interest of the recorded
tenant. (Para-12)
(v) 63(1987) CLT-347 : Braja Kishore Panda vrs. Damodar
Rout and another--C.P.C., 1908--Section 9--The civil
court has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decisions
of the consolidations authorities and declare those as without
jurisdiction. Such decisions are available to be varied by the
Higher Forums provided under the consolidation Act.(Para-4)
(vi) 2019(1) OLR-795 :Laxmidhar Sahu and others vrs. State of
Orissa and others--OCH &PFL Act, 1972 --Sections 9 and
16--The consolidation authorities have got jurisdiction to
decide the questions of right, title and interest, which would
operate as res-judicata, civil court has got no jurisdiction to
hear and decide the suit afresh.(Para-10)
(vii) 2007(Suppl-1) OLR-276 : Balaram Bhoi and others vrs.
Babajee Bhoi and others--OCH& PFL Act, 1972--Right,
title and interest of the land-holders--An RoR published by
the consolidation authorities cannot be varied or set aside by
the civil court.(Para-9)
// 13 //
(viii) 2003(II) OLR-16 : Mohan Biswal vrs. Sri Gopinath Dev
and 6 others--Consolidation RoR prepared by the
Consolidation Authority is not under challenge before any
competent authority, so, said RoR has to be respected until it
is found to be illegal or incorrect.
(ix) 2015(I) CLR-360 : Chintamani Kandi(dead) after him, his
L.Rs. Para Dei and others vrs. Arjun Kandi and others--
RoR prepared by the consolidation authority--value
thereof--RoR is necessary to pronounce the judgment.
Because, the consolidation authority having decided
appellant's title in the suit land have recorded in the name of
appellants. The title and possession through the same
declares. (Para-13)
(x) 2009 (2) C.J.D.(HC)-71--Orissa Consolidation of Holdings
and Prevention of Fragmentations of Land Act, 1972--
Sections 4(4) and 51 forcible possession noting in RoR--
Effect of--The authorities under Orissa Consolidation of
Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972
are not vested with power to record forcible possession with
a party while preparing land record.(Para-15)
(xi) 65(1988) CLT-440(F.B.) : Sundarmani Bewa and another
vrs. Dasarath Parida (dead) and after him Labanya Dei and
others--Note of possession in consolidation RoR-affect of--
Noting of possession in consolidation RoR is beyond the
scope of consolidation authorities. Because, the recording of
title to the properties with one person and possession with
another does not serve the intent and purpose of the
consolidation act and therefore, ought not to be undertaken
by the consolidation authorities under that act.
The authorities under the Consolidation Act are not
vested with the power to record forcible possession with a
// 14 //
party other than the person recorded as the owner of the land
while preparing land records.(Para-2)
(xii) 2019(1) CLR-950 : Laxmidhar Sahu and others vrs. State
of Orissa and others--C.P.C., 1908--Section 9 & 11--Res
judicata--A decision of the consolidation authorities on the
question of right, title and interest, which are matters within
their jurisdiction would operate as res judicata and that being
so, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide the suit.
(xiii) 74(1992) CLT-741 : Biranchi Sahu vrs. Jujesti Sahu-- It
was clearly laid down that, the decision of the consolidation
authorities on the question of right, title and interest, which
are matters within their jurisdiction would operate as res
judicata and that being so, the civil court will have no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit afresh.
(xiv) 57(1984) CLT - 398 : Hrudananda Panda and another vrs.
Dhirendra Behura alias Behera--C.P.C.--Section--Res
judicata--Declaration of rights and interests in land by the
consolidation authorities--Res judicata in civil court.(Para-9)
(xv) 125(2018) CLT-416--C.P.C., 1908--Sections 9 and 11--
Matter in issue was directly and substantial before
consolidation authority--Held decision of the consolidation
authority shall operates res judicata in the Civil Court.
Consequently, entry in the consolidation RoR, which is in favour
of the appellant has rightly argued to the meaningless. Therefore, learned
courts below cannot be said to have add in deciding the suit ignoring the
consolidation RoR.
// 15 //
16. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the defendants after being
defeated from the competent authorities under the Consolidation Act for
recording the suit properties in their names, they(defendants) have not
challenged the orders of the consolidation authorities concerning the
recording of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff exclusively
under Khata No.73 before any higher forums under the Consolidation
Act, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in
the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the judgments and
decrees passed by the trial court and the 1st appellate court in dismissing
the suit of the plaintiff ignoring the consolidation RoR of the suit
properties in favour of the plaintiff are not sustainable under law.
Because, as per law and in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions,
the finally published RoR under the Consolidation Act vide Ext.3 holds
good for the right, title and interest in respect of the suit properties in
favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the possession of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit properties also stands presumed. For which, the RoR
of the suit properties vide Ext.3 prepared by the consolidation authorities
in favour of the plaintiff cannot be varied or set aside by the civil court
and the said RoR / decision of the consolidation authorities for recording
the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff has operated as res judicata
on the civil court and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to hear and
// 16 //
decide the suit concerning the right, title, interest and possession of the
parties over the suit properties afresh. Because in view of the ratio of the
above decisions reported in 2009(2) C.J.D. 71, the decision taken by the
consolidation authorities as to the right, title and interest in respect of the
non-consolidable properties like the suit properties would be valid,
proper and effective as per law like the consolidable properties and the
consolidation authorities were/are not vested with any power under law
to note the possession in favour a party other than the recorded owner
thereof. For which, as per law, the noting of possession in favour of the
defendants in the remarks column of the Consolidation RoR vide Ext.3 is
held to be meaningless having no value thereof. Therefore, the noting of
possession in favour of the defendants in the consolidation RoR vide
Ext.3 has no impact on the title and possession of the plaintiff over the
suit properties. For which, the said noting of possession in the remarks
column of the consolidation are ignored as per law.
17. So far as the 2nd formulated substantial question of law, i.e.,
whether the findings and observations made by the trial court and 1 st
appellate court for the dismissal of the suit of the appellant(plaintiff) vide
T.S. No.03 of 1997 on the ground that, the defendants have acquired
their right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse
possession is concerned;
// 17 //
Here in this suit/appeal at hand, as per the pleadings of the
defendants, i.e., in Para nos.4, 5 and 6 of the written statement of the
defendants, they (defendants) have claimed their title over the suit
properties through the registered Sale Deed bearing No.642 dated
30.01.1974 and they(defendants) have also claimed their title over the
suit properties through adverse possession simultaneously.
It is very fundamental in civil law that, the claim/plea of title over
the suit properties through adverse possession by the defendants against
the plaintiff itself is an indirect admission of the defendants to the title of
the plaintiff over the suit properties. Because, the defendants cannot
claim their title over the suit properties through adverse possession
without admitting the title of the plaintiff on the same. Therefore, as per
law, the claim of title over the suit properties through adverse possession
by the defendants like the suit/appeal at hand against the plaintiff is their
indirect admission to the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties.
18. The claim of title of the defendants over the suit properties
through registered sale deed as well as through adverse possession
simultaneously is prohibited under law. Because, the above two types of
claims, i.e., claim of title over the suit properties through documents as
well as through adverse possession at a time are mutually inconsistent
// 18 //
and destructive to each other. If the above two pleas are taken by a party
simultaneously, none among the said pleas can be acceptable under law.
19. On that aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
by the Hon'ble courts in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) 2005(3) CCC-167 (Madras) : Pappayammal vrs.
Palanisamy and Ors.--A party can plead adverse
possession, when he admits that, another party has got title.
(ii) 2008(3) CCC-173(P&H) : Jagat Singh and others vrs.
Srikishan Dass and others--Once plea of adverse
possession is raised, it pre-supposes the title over the suit
land of the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff is deemed to
be admitted.
(iii) 2008(4) CCC-239(P&H) : Gurubax Singh (dead) by LRs.
vrs. Karnail Singh--The plea of adverse possession
necessarily implies the admission of the title of the plaintiff.
(iv) 2005(4) Civil Law Times-378(P&H) : Sultan and Ors. vrs.
Kasturi and Ors.--Adverse Possession--Plea of adverse
possession is indirect admission of ownership of plaintiff.
(Para-8).
(v) 2006(I) Civil Law Time-86(P&H) : Mahinder Pal and
others vrs. Prem Kumar and others--Adverse
Possession--Once plea of ownership based on sale-deed
revised, then the plea of adverse possession would be
mutually destructive and inconsistent.(Para-4)
(vi) 2006(3) CCC-234(Andhra Pradesh) : Gafoor Khan vrs.
Sultan Jehan through LRs and others--Plea of title and
// 19 //
adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and latter does
not begin to operate till former is renounced.
20. In view of the ratio of the decisions referred to (supra), when the
defendants are precluded under law to take the above inconsistent and
mutually destructive pleas in their pleadings/written statement, then at
this juncture, due to taking up of the aforesaid inconsistent pleas by the
defendants, their both the pleas have become inacceptable under law.
21. As per the discussions made above, when the claim of title of the
defendants over the suit properties has become inacceptable under law,
then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the decisions referred to (supra), it is held that, the findings and
observations made by the trial court as well as 1st appellate court
regarding the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff/appellant vide T.S.
No.03 of 1997 on the ground that, the defendants have acquired their
title over the suit properties by way of adverse possession cannot be
sustainable under law.
22. On analysis of the facts and law, when it is held that, the plaintiff
has right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties, because,
after deciding the right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit
properties, the consolidation RoR vide Ext.3 has been prepared in favour
of the plaintiff as per the orders of the consolidation authorities and the
// 20 //
said orders of the consolidation authorities have not been varied/altered
or set aside by any higher forums under the consolidation Act and when
the claims of the defendants regarding their title and possession over the
suit properties has become inacceptable under law, then at this juncture,
it is held that, the plaintiff has right title interest and possession over the
suit properties, but, the defendants have no right, title, interest and
possession on the same.
23. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree, i.e., declaration
of his right, title, interest over the suit properties, confirmation of his
possession thereon along with the decree of permanent injuction against
the defendants.
As the trial court as well as the 1st appellate court has dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.03 of 1997, for which, there is
justification under law for making interference with the same through
this 2nd appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is merit in the 2nd
appeal of the appellant(plaintiff). The same must succeed.
24. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant(plaintiff) is allowed
on merit, but, without cost.
// 21 //
25. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in T.S. No.03
of 1997 and the confirmation of the same by the 1 st appellate court in
T.A. No.02 of 2000 are set aside.
26. The suit be and the same filed by the appellant (plaintiff) vide T.S.
No.03 of 1997 is decreed on contest against the defendants, but, without
cost.
The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties
are declared and his possession over the same is confirmed.
27. The defendants are permanently injuncted from interfering in the
possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 7th of May, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
