4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff was not appointed as Nariha of the village. The suit land was not settled by Gountia in favour of the plaintiff. The suit land is Gram Kota land. Placing reliance on R.O.R., Ext.3, it held that the plaintiff had acquired title over the suit land. Prior to institution of suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land on the date of institution of the suit. There is no prayer to recover the suit land. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.26/18 of 1994-96 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Sambalpur. Learned appellate court came to hold that ROR, vide Ext.3, was published in the year 1979 in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has title over the suit property. Rent receipts, vide Ext.2 series, show that he is in possession of the same. Though there is no specific prayer in the plaint for recovery of possession, but applying the principles laid down under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, it held that the court can grant relief. Held so, it allowed the appeal.
