A.K. Rath, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
(2.) Case of the plaintiff was that his father Sagada Mallik reclaimed the suit land. He was in possession of the suit land for the last 50 years. After death of his father, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. ROR was issued in his favour. The defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land. They are not in possession over the same. They mutated their names in the mutation case in the year 1984. The defendants threatened to dispossess him from the suit land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.
(3.) Defendants filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, they are the nephews of the plaintiff. The father of the defendants and the father of the plaintiff were in possession of the suit land. The father of the defendants passed away at an early age. They were under the care and custody of the plaintiff, as a result of which the suit lands were recorded in the name of the plaintiff during settlement operation. The plaintiff admitted the right of the defendants before the Tahasildar. They filed mutation case before the Tahasildar to mutate their names. The Tahasildar after due enquiry found that the suit land belongs to the share of the defendants. Accordingly, the suit land was mutated in their names. The land was mutated with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. Thus they are in exclusive possession over the suit land.;