A.K.PARICHHA,J. - (1.)This is a Plaintiffs' Second Appeal against the composite Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Title Appeal No. 3/10 of 1995/94 and Title Appeal No. 5/17 of 1996/94
(2.)THE present Appellants, as Plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 255 of 1989 in the Court the Munsif, Puri for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Respondents from interfering with their possession over the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the Plaintiffs, in substance, was that the suit land was lying fallow and the Plaintiffs occupied the same 45 years back, reclaimed the land for the purpose of agriculture and horticulture, planted trees, constructed temple and thatched house, dug a pond and openly enjoyed the property without any hindrance for a period of more than 30 years and acquired title over the same by adverse possession against the State. It was pleaded that the State Government never interfered with the open possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property, but suddenly in the year 1989 at the instance of some political enemies of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants threatened to dismantle the house and temple, cut and remove the trees from the suit land and to evict the Plaintiffs, for which the Plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants along with a petition under Section 80(2), C.P.C. to dispense with service of notice prior to filing of the suit.
(3.)THE Defendant -Respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement. Defendant No. 1, however, filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint inter alia pleading that the suit property is a Government land classified as 'patita' and 'Bijesthali' in the consolidation R.O.R. published on 13.12.1982, that the Plaintiffs never occupied this land, never constructed any house or temple, never planted any tree and never dug any tank over the same. It was pleaded that the suit land is all along under the control and management of the State and it has been alienated in favour of the O.S.E.B. for construction of a power station. The Defendant No. 1 alleged that the Plaintiff filed the suit with mala fide intention to stall the process of construction of the power station and to grab the suit property. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground that it is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action and the suit as framed is not maintainable. From the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as 8 Issues. Plaintiff No. 1 examined himself and four witnesses and proved some documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 6. Defendant No. 1 examined the local Revenue Inspector as the only witness and adduced the documentary evidence vide Exts. A and B. On consideration of these evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1964, they have not perfected their title of the suit property by adverse possession, the Defendants are not in management of the suit property, there is cause of action, the suit is not barred by limitation, and that the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable. Consequently the Trial Court decreed the suit in part on contest against Defendant No. 1 and ex parte against Defendant No. 2, thereby permanently injuncting the Defendants from interfering with possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property and from dispossessing them there from except by due process of law.
The Plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 3/10 of 1995/94 challenging the findings of the Trial Court that they are not in adverse possession of the suit property for more than 30 years and the Defendants filed Title Appeal No. 5/17 of 1996/94 challenging the findings of the Trial Court on all the other issues. The 1st Appellate Court heard both the appeals together and by common Judgment, dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiffs, but allowed the appeal filed by the Defendants and ruled that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any injunction. The said Judgment and decree is now under challenge in this appeal.