JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. Defendant nos.2 and 3 are the appellants against confirming judgment. 2. Respondent no.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that the suit lands were nazul land of Bolangir town. The State leased out the suit land along with other lands to him by means of a registered lease deed dated 18.11.1973 for a period of 90 years for construction of a house. He is in possession of the suit land along with other lands. On 22.03.1980, the defendants encroached upon the suit land and started digging earth for construction of latrine. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that though Ac.0.85 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 2483/51 was settled with the plaintiff by the State, but in the current settlement operation, the said plot corresponding to Plot No. 1289 and 1292 (part) has been recorded as ‘Rakhit’ in the name of the State. The land being nazul in character, the State of Orissa is a necessary party to the lis. In the absence of the State, the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that defendant no.3 had land towards the north of the house of the plaintiff. During current settlement operation, the said land had been recorded as plot no.1290. Defendant no.3 laid the foundation for a latrine. Adjacent to plot no.1290, there is another plot bearing plot no. 1264/2464 recorded as ‘Maladiha Rakhit’. He is in possession thereof for more than 30 years. The defendant no. 1 is also a contiguous owner of plot no. 1293, which is situated towards the east of the house of the plaintiff. He has not encroached upon any portion of the suit land. The boundary wall was completed long prior to the institution of the suit and as such, the question of issuing perpetual injunction not to proceed with the construction of the wall does not arise. Similarly, the defendant no.2, Purna Chandra Das is in possession of plot no.1292 (part) recorded as ‘Rakhit’ during current settlement operation whereon he constructed a latrine. The plaintiff had absolutely no locus standi to prevent the defendants from constructing the latrine by him. Similarly, the defendant no.2, Purna Chandra Das is in possession of plot no.1292 (part) recorded as ‘Rakhit’ during current settlement operation whereon he constructed a latrine. The plaintiff had absolutely no locus standi to prevent the defendants from constructing the latrine by him. The plaintiff is in possession of the lease hold land settled in his favour over which he had constructed a building. They had not encroached upon any land. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court decreed the suit in part holding, inter alia, that 185 sq.ft. of land appertains to plaintiff’s plot no.2483/51. The same is situated on the eastern portion of the suit land. 335 sq.ft of land appertains to plot no. 2463/51. The same is situated on the northern side of the suit land. The defendants have encroached upon those portions of land i.e., 520 sq.ft. The State of Orissa is not a necessary party. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants appealed before the learned District Judge, Bolangir, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Bolangir and renumbered as T.A. No. 36/24 of 1987-89. The learned lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the courts below were justified in not refusing relief to the plaintiff on account of non-specific description of the suit property ? (ii) Whether the courts below erred in misconstruing the report submitted by the Civil Court Commissioner and therefore, their findings are vitiated ?” 6. Heard Mr. Buddhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel along with Mr. Pranay Swain, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in misconstruing the report submitted by the civil court commissioner. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff has described the suit schedule property appertaining to Khata No. 68, Plot No. 2483/51, area 700 sq.ft. marked ‘A’ in the map and 180 sq.ft. marked ‘B’, No. 56 shown in the map vide Ext.4. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff has described the suit schedule property appertaining to Khata No. 68, Plot No. 2483/51, area 700 sq.ft. marked ‘A’ in the map and 180 sq.ft. marked ‘B’, No. 56 shown in the map vide Ext.4. The courts below, on consideration of the report submitted by the civil court commissioner vide Ext.4 as well as the evidence on record, decreed the suit. There is no perversity in the findings of the courts below. 9. Both the courts below, on scanning of the evidence on record, report of the amin commissioner and pleadings, came to hold that the plaintiff has title over the suit property. The defendants have encroached upon the plaintiff’s land. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 10. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.