CUTTACK, India, April 18 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 17:

1. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant and respondent in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiff and defendant before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 and respondent and appellant respectively before the learned 1 st appellate court in the 1 st appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011.

3. The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 against the defendant(respondent in this 2 nd appeal) was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The properties described in the schedule of the plaint are the suit properties.

As per the case of the plaintiff, while, he(plaintiff) was minor in the year 1966, the suit properties were purchased jointly by the minor plaintiff represented though this father guardian and one Ratnalu Arjun of Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh through registered Sale Deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966. Since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, he(plaintiff) was possessing the suit properties exclusively through his father guardian, as his co-purchaser, Ratnalu Arjun was a resident of distant place, i.e., Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh and he was residing there.

He(plaintiff) and his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun applied for mutation of the suit properties to their names by filing Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 and the said Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 was allowed on dated 25.06.1967 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada in favour of the plaintiff and his co-purchaser Ratnalu Arjun, but, as the plaintiff was minor by then, for which, RoR of the suit properties, was prepared by the Tahasil authorities in the name of his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun, which was unknown to the minor plaintiff. When one Himirika Rupa created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties, for which, he(plaintiff) filed a suit for injunction against Himirika Rupa in respect of the suit properties. That suit vide T.S. No.51 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Rayagada and Himirika Rupa was injuncted permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=oVz058q2ZLjDVEITM0Vw1FbCtcKhSXOEGEZPtW4EGCuSO3VshNuJZ%2Bcl8vLZvzro&caseno=RSA/19/2015&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010448412015&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.