JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiff’s appeal in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the adopted son of Purandar Pradhan and defendant no.1. Purandar Pradhan was the Gountia of village Purunagarh. After death of his father, he inherited Gountiship as well as the land attached to the said Gountiship. He made an application for mutation of the land. The same was allowed and the land was mutated in his name. But then his mother, defendant no.1 preferred mutation appeal. The same was dismissed. Notwithstanding dismissal of the mutation appeal, land in question had been settled with defendant no.1 in the Bhogra conversion proceeding. No notice was served on him. The order of settlement was invalid and inoperative since defendant no.1 was not the Gountia of the village and, as such, land could not be settled in her favour. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 filed Title Suit No.2 of 1973 claiming exclusive right, title and interest in respect of the entire properties on the basis of the settlement in her favour and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not her adopted son, in the alternative for partition of the properties. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Purandar Pradhan and defendant no.1. But the defendant no.1 got the title of the property on the basis of the settlement made in her favour in the Bhogra conversion proceeding. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.32/80 before the Subordinate Judge, Deogarh. In the said appeal, a compromise was entered into between the parties wherein the defendant no.1 admitted the exclusive right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and abandoned her claim for partition. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. Notwithstanding the said compromise, defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 wanted to disturb his possession. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed with the relief stated supra. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered contest and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was stated that Purandar was the Gountia. After him, defendant no.1 being the sole surviving member enjoyed the Gountiship throughout. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed with the relief stated supra. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered contest and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was stated that Purandar was the Gountia. After him, defendant no.1 being the sole surviving member enjoyed the Gountiship throughout. They did not know about the so-called mutation in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants did not deny the adoption of the plaintiff. According to them, the plaintiff did not acquire the property attached to the Gountiship. The land in question had been settled with defendant no.1 in Bhogra conversion proceeding in Settlement Case No.45/67. Thus defendant no.1 had acquired indefeasible right and saleable interest to part on in favour of defendant no.2. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule land. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Learned trial court came to hold that so far as title in respect of the disputed property is concerned, the plaintiff could be said to have acquired right, title and interest over the same in view of the decree passed in T.A No.32/80. The sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was not valid. The claim of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 got the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 fraudulently without paying any consideration of the sale to defendant no.1 appeared to be probable. With regard to the maintainability of the suit, it was held that the suit was maintainable particularly when the sale deed said to have been executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was not legal, valid and binding. So far as issues 3 and 4 are concerned, learned trial court came to hold that defendant no.2 had no right, title and interest over the land in question. Held so, learned trial court decreed the suit. 5. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant no.2 filed appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh, which was registered as T.A No.32/80. Held so, learned trial court decreed the suit. 5. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant no.2 filed appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh, which was registered as T.A No.32/80. Learned lower appellate court examined the validity of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in the earlier title appeal and came to hold that Ext.P showed that defendant no.1 admitted right, title and interest of the suit property of the plaintiff and did not press for partition. Further, it entertained the contention with regard to unsoundness mind of defendant no.1 on the basis of the evidence led though there was absolutely no basis for the same in the pleadings of the parties and came to hold that the said compromise would not be binding on the parties. It further held that in view of the terms and conditions of the compromise, learned Munsif should not have decreed the suit on that basis. Accordingly, it held that defendant no.1 was the rightful owner of the suit property. She had right to alienate the property in favour of defendant no.2. Held so, learned lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and allowed the appeal. 6. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court, the plaintiff filed the instant appeal. Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 12.11.1993 set aside the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court and allowed the appeal with costs. 7. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, defendant no.1/respondent no.1 died leaving behind her only son, present appellant. Accordingly, her name was deleted. 8. Defendant no.2 approached the apex Court assailing the judgment passed by this Court. By order dated 7.8.2003 in Civil Appeal No.3682 of 1996, the apex Court set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court with a direction to restore the appeal to file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after following mandatory provision of Section 100 CPC. Be it noted that the second appeal was disposed of without formulating the substantial question of law. 9. After remand, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated. Be it noted that the second appeal was disposed of without formulating the substantial question of law. 9. After remand, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated. “I. Whether the settlement in the Bhogra conversion proceeding in favour of defendant no.1 will enure to the benefit of other co-sharers ? II. Whether the compromise made in Title Appeal No.32 of 1980 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is binding between the parties ? III. Whether the simply suit for permanent injunction in the absence of any consequential relief is maintainable ?” 10. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Purandar Pradhan and defendant no.1. His father was the Gountia of the village Purunagarh. After death of his father, he inherited the Gountiaship. In the mutation proceeding, the land was mutated in his favour. The defendant no.1 preferred appeal. The appeal was dismissed. No notice was served on him in the Bhogra conversion proceeding. Even if the land was settled in favour of his father in the Bhogra conversion proceeding, the same would enure to the benefit of other co-sharers. He further submitted that in Title Appeal No.32 of 1980 the matter was compromised, wherein she has admitted the exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property. She had no right to alienate the property in favour of defendant no.2. He is not bound by the same. Since defendant no.2 created disturbances, the plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction. 11. Per contra, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that much prior to the decree in Title Appeal No.32/80, defendant no.1, to press her legal necessity, alienated a portion of the suit schedule land in favour of defendant no.2 for a valid consideration and delivered the possession. Thus a simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 12. In Krushna Ch. Meher and others v. Hrushikesh Meher and others, 26 (1960) CLT 187, this Court held that when the Bhogra land was subsequently converted into ryoti land, it lost its character of impartibility and the ordinary rule of Hindu Law regarding the right of a junior member to claim partition by metes and bounds would necessarily revive. 13. In Krushna Ch. Meher and others v. Hrushikesh Meher and others, 26 (1960) CLT 187, this Court held that when the Bhogra land was subsequently converted into ryoti land, it lost its character of impartibility and the ordinary rule of Hindu Law regarding the right of a junior member to claim partition by metes and bounds would necessarily revive. 13. In Janardan Naik and another v. Khageswar Naik and others, AIR 1963 Orissa 130, it was held that where one of the members of the Hindu joint family enjoyed the protected status under Section 65-A of the C.P Land Revenue Act during his life time the result was to prevent other members of the family from asserting their title to the property. In other words, their rights, whatever they were, were formant, ready to spring up into existence as soo as the protection was removed. On the removal of the protection in 1960 by the Orissa Government Notification No.15191 EA-1-12-1960 R. dated March 30, 1960, the dormant right of other members revived and sprang up into existence. 14. Taking a cue from the aforesaid decisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Palka v. Sadhuram Palia & others, ILR 1980 Cuttack 202 interpreting the Sections of the Sonepur Bhumibidhi held that after the abolition of Gounti right by notification dated 2.2.1956 and after the lands were surrendered and thereafter settled with one of the co-sharers, the other co-sharers can claim partition of the suit lands. It was further held that once Gountia system is abolished and the Bhogra land is settled on raiyati basis on defendant no.1, the properties became partible. The Bhogra lands should become joint family property and the right of other members of the joint family which remained dormant so long as the Bhogra tenure subsisted would spring into life as soon as the tenure is abolished. Unsuccessful party approached the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1900 of 1981. The appeal was dismissed, thereby the judgment of this Court was confirmed. The substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No.I is answered in affirmative. 15. Defendant no.1-mother instituted Title Suit No.22 of 1975 in the court of learned Munsif, Bamra for declaration of right, title and interest, for a declaration that the present plaintiff is not the adopted son with alternative prayer for partition. The substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No.I is answered in affirmative. 15. Defendant no.1-mother instituted Title Suit No.22 of 1975 in the court of learned Munsif, Bamra for declaration of right, title and interest, for a declaration that the present plaintiff is not the adopted son with alternative prayer for partition. The suit was decreed with the finding that the plaintiff is as the adopted son of Purandar and defendant no.1. She has got right, title and interest over the property on the basis of the settlement in Bhogra conversion proceeding. She carried an appeal, which was registered Title Appeal No.32 of 1980. During pendency of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and accordingly a petition was filed. She admitted the exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property and abandoned the claim for partition. The title appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. The same has attained finality. In view of the same, the compromise made in Title Appeal No.32 of 1980 is binding between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Accordingly, the substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No.II is answered in affirmative. 16. The land was settled in favour of defendant no.1 in Bhogra conversion proceeding in Settlement Case No.45/67. The same was not challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time. To press her legal necessities, defendant no.1 alienated a portion of the suit schedule land in favour of defendant no.2 by means of registered sale deed on 7.6.1975 vide Ext.A for a valid consideration and delivered possession. The sale deed executed by defendant no.1 has not been challenged. While the matter stood thus, in Title Appeal No.32/80, a compromise was arrived at between the parties wherein defendant no.1 admitted the exclusive right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and abandoned the claim of partition. The appeal was disposed of on 21.12.1981 in terms of compromise vide Ext.1. Much prior to the decree passed in Title Appeal No.32/80, defendant no.1 had alienated an area of Ac.4.52 cent appertaining to Khata No.62 of village-Purunagarh (a portion of the suit schedule property) in favour of defendant no.2 and delivered possession. 17. The appeal was disposed of on 21.12.1981 in terms of compromise vide Ext.1. Much prior to the decree passed in Title Appeal No.32/80, defendant no.1 had alienated an area of Ac.4.52 cent appertaining to Khata No.62 of village-Purunagarh (a portion of the suit schedule property) in favour of defendant no.2 and delivered possession. 17. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs & others, AIR 2008 SC 2033 , the apex Court held that where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. The sale deed was executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 on 7.6.1975. Possession was duly delivered to defendant no.2. No prayer has been made to set aside the sale deed and recovery of possession. 18. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar (supra), the simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Accordingly, substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No.III is answered against the plaintiff. 19. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraph is that the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.