The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.103 of 1998 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) 1. @ Achyutananda Senapati aged about 58 years S/o. Gopinath Senapati Senapati Achyuta 2. Panchu Senapati, aged about 60 years, Son of Sanei Senapati, represented Achuta Senapati Power of Attorney holder. through 3. Raghunath Rana .... Appellants -versus- Sri Lachanan Balaji Deb Bije Badamatha Ranpur represented by Sri Gopal Saran Das (dead) after him Sri Hari Saran Dash .... Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. S. Das, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :10.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the
Legal Reasoning
Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 1 of 13 The respondent (deity) in this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 and respondent before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993. 3. The suit of the plaintiff-deity (respondent in this 2nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 against the defendants (appellants in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for declaration, correction of R.o.R and permanent injunction in alternative recovery of possession. 4. The suit land is Ac.0.71 decimals of Hal Plot No.313 under Hal Khata No.180 in Mouza Pimpala under Ranpur P.S. in the District of Nayagarh. 5. The case of the plaintiff-deity (respondent in this 2nd appeal) before the learned Trial Court was that, the plaintiff (deity) is the owner of the suit plot No.313 Ac.0.71 decimals in Mouza Pimpala. The father of Panchu Senapati (defendant No.1) i.e. Sanei Senapati was a bhag tenant under the plaintiff (deity) in respect of the suit plot No.313 Ac.0.71 decimals under Khata No.180 of village Pimpala. Even though, the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. Sanei Senapati was not the owner of the suit land, but he had managed to record his name erroneously in the R.o.R. under sthitiban dhulibhag tenant without knowledge of the marfatdar of the plaintiff (deity). Sanei Senapati (father of defendant No.1) died leaving behind defendant No.1 (Panchu Senapati) as his successor. Then, the plaintiff (deity) filed the suit vide Page 2 of 13 S.A. No.103 of 1998 O.S. No.20 of 1958-I against Panchu Senapati, his widow mother and Raghunath Rana in the Court of Munsif, Nayagarh for evicting them (defendants) from the suit plot No.313. But, the said suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I filed by the plaintiff (deity) was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff (deity) challenged the same preferring an appeal vide T.A. No.70 of 1959 before the Appellate Court i.e. in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. After hearing, the said appeal vide T.A. No.70 of 1959 filed by the plaintiff (deity) was allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.20 of 1958-I was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff (deity) vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I against the defendants was decreed and accordingly, a decree of eviction from the suit plot No.313 was passed against the defendants i.e. against Panchu Senapati, his widow mother and Raghunath Rana i.e. against all the defendants of the said suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I. As per the execution of the above decree passed in T.A. No.70 of 1959 through Execution Case No.7 of 1962, the possession of the suit plot No.313 was recovered from the defendants thereof on 05.12.1962 (Ext.4). As such, since 05.12.1962, the plaintiff (deity) is in possession over the suit plot No.313. The suit Plot No.313 was debottar niskar land. For which, the plaintiff (deity) was not paying rent for the same, but the plaintiff (deity) was only paying cess for the same. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 3 of 13 As the suit plot No.313 was debottar niskar land, for which, as per order dated 28.05.1984 passed in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981, the rent of the suit Plot No.313 was fixed in the name of plaintiff (deity) and since then, the plaintiff (deity) has been paying rent of the suit Plot No.313. In fact, the suit plot No.313 is under Khata No.180, but not under Khata No.181. The said plot No.313 was erroneously included under Khata No.181. For which, the plaintiff (deity) filed a mutation case vide Mutation Case No.168 of 1984 before the Tahasildar, Ranpur for correction of the R.o.R. of the suit plot No.313 from Khata No.181 to Khata No.180. But, that Mutation Case No.168 of 1984 was rejected on 24.08.1984. So, the plaintiff (deity) filed the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 in the Court of Addl. Munsif, Ranpur against Panchu Senapati (defendant No.1), Raghunath Rana (defendant No.2) and Achyuta Senapati (defendant No.3) praying for declaration of title of the plaintiff (deity) over the suit Plot No.313 and for correction of the R.o.R. of the suit Plot No.313 from Khata No.181 to Khata No.180 and to injunct the defendants permanently from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff (deity) over the suit land, in alternative to recover the possession of the suit plot No.313, if during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff (deity) is found to be dispossessed from the same. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 4 of 13 6. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984, the defendants contested the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 of the plaintiff (deity) filing their joint written statement taking their stands that, they (defendants) are the occupancy raiyat of suit Plot No.313 on the basis of the R.o.R. of the suit plot published in the name of Sanei Senapati (father of the defendant No.1). For which, on the basis of their continuous possession, they (defendants) are the deemed tenants of the suit Plot No.313 under the State. Their further case was that, the defendant No.3 has purchased the suit Plot No.313 from the defendant No.1 (Panchu Senapati). For which, he (defendant No.3-Achyuta Senapati) has title over the suit plot. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff (deity) is liable to be dismissed against them (defendants). 7. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 7 (seven) numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 and the said issues are:- ISSUES (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Is the suit maintainable? Is there any cause of action? Whether the plaintiff or the defendants have right, title and interest and possession over the suit land? Is the suit barred by res-judicata? Whether the suit has been properly valued? To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? Whether the suit is barred by limitation? S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 5 of 13 8. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiff (deity) against the defendants in the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff (deity) as P.W. Nos.1 to 7 and series of documents were marked from the side of the plaintiff (deity) as Exts.1 to 19. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiff (deity), the defendants examined four witnesses on their behalf including defendant No.3 as D.W.4 and relied upon series of documents from their side, vide Exts.A to C. 9. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff (deity) and against the defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in the issues in favour of the plaintiff (deity) and against the defendants, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 of the plaintiff (deity) on contest against the defendant Nos.1 & 3 and ex-parte against the defendant No.2 as per its judgment and decree dated 30.04.1993 and 12.05.1993 respectively and declared that, the R.o.R. in respect of the suit Plot No.313 prepared in favour of the father of the defendant No.1 under Khata No.181 be corrected from same to Khata No.180 in the name of the plaintiff (deity) and restrained them (defendants) permanently from interfering into the peaceful Page 6 of 13 S.A. No.103 of 1998 possession of the plaintiff (deity) in suit Plot No.313 and also held that, the plaintiff (deity) has not been dispossessed from the suit Plot No.313 during the pendency of the suit assigning the reasons that, “as per the unchallenged order passed by the Tahasildar, Ranpur in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981 vide Ext.5, the plaintiff (deity) is the sthitiban tenant of the suit Plot No.313 under the State and since the date of taking the delivery of possession of the suit Plot No.313 from the defendants as per the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No.70 of 1959 arising out O.S. No.20 of 1958-I through Execution Case No.7 of 1962 i.e. since 05.12.1962, the plaintiff (deity) has not been dispossessed from the suit Plot No.313 and when there is no dispute about the passing of the decree in T.A. No.70 of 1959 in favour of the plaintiff (deity) and taking up of delivery of possession of the suit Plot No.313 through Execution Case No.7 of 1962 from the defendants, then the defendants cannot take advantage of wrong recording of the Khata Number of suit Plot No.313. As there is no dispute about the title and possession of suit Plot No.313 in favour of the plaintiff (deity), for which, the claim of the defendants in respect of the suit Plot No.313 is not tenable under law.” 10. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.04.1993 and 12.05.1993 respectively passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.58 of 1984 in favour of the plaintiff (deity), the defendants challenged the same preferring 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993 being the appellants against the plaintiff (deity) arraying the plaintiff (deity) as respondent. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 7 of 13 11. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993 of the defendants concurring/confirming the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.58 of 1984 in favour of the plaintiff (deity) as per its judgment and decree dated 31.01.1998 and 23.02.1998 respectively assigning the reasons that, “the possession of the suit land is with the plaintiff (deity) through recovery of possession of the same since 05.12.1962 in Execution Case No.7 of 1962 vide Ext.4 and the rent of the suit Plot No.313 has been fixed in the name of the plaintiff (deity) by the O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Ranpur as per order dated 28.05.1984(Ext.5) passed in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981 under Section 8 (1) of the O.E.A. Act. For which, the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit Plot No.313 and they (defendants) have no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiff (deity) in suit Plot No.313. So, the suit Plot No.313 is in fact under Khata No.180, but not under Khata No.181. Therefore, the suit Plot No.313 be corrected from Khata No.181 to Khata No.180, because the suit Plot No.313 has been erroneously included in Khata No.181 in favour of defendant No.1 and as such, the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed to the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993 concurring the findings of the learned Trial Court.” 12. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1993 of the defendants, they (defendants) challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 8 of 13 appellants against the plaintiff (deity) arraying the plaintiff (deity) as respondent. 13. When the appellant No.3-Raghunath Rana (defendant No.2) expired during the pendency of the appeal, then, as per Order dated 26.09.2000, the appeal against him (appellant No.3, defendant No.2) was abated. During the pendency of this 2nd appeal, as per Order dated 10.05.2002 passed in M.C. No.317 of 2002, appellant No.2 (defendant No.1) was withdrawn himself from this 2nd appeal. For which, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant No.2 was dismissed on dated 10.05.2002 against him (appellant No.2, defendant No.1) as withdrawn. For which, as per law, this 2nd appeal was prosecuted only by the appellant No.1-Achyuta Senapati (defendant No.3). 14. This Second Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:- Whether the findings of the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court about the identity of the suit plot, without giving any finding about the possession is sustainable under law? 15. I have already heard from learned counsel for the appellant (defendant No.3) and learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff-deity). 16. It is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as learned 1st Appellate Court that, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 of the present suit vide T.S. No.58 of 1984 were the defendants in the previous suit vide Page 9 of 13 S.A. No.103 of 1998 O.S. No.20 of 1958-I filed by the plaintiff (deity) in respect of the suit Plot No.313. The said suit vide O.S. No.20 of 1958-I was decreed in favour of the plaintiff (deity) in respect of the suit Plot No.313 as per the judgment and decree for eviction against them (defendant Nos.1 & 2) passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.70 of 1959 vide Ext.3. 17. On the basis of the execution of the decree passed in T.A. No.70 of 1959 through Execution Case No.7 of 1962 as per order dated 05.12.1962 (Ext.4), the possession of the suit Plot No.313 was recovered from the defendants and the possession thereof was handed over to the plaintiff (deity) through the process of Court. There is no material or document in the record on behalf of the defendants to show about the dispossession of the plaintiff (deity) from the suit plot No.313 in any manner till yet since 05.12.1962. 18. The unchallenged order passed on dated 28.05.1984 (Ext.5) in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981 by the Tahasildar, Ranpur under Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act is going to show that, the rent of the suit Plot No.313 was fixed in favour of the plaintiff (deity) and since then, the State is receiving rent of the suit Plot No.313 from the plaintiff (deity) accepting the plaintiff (deity) as a tenant in respect of suit Plot No.313 under the State. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 10 of 13 19. As such, the title and possession of the plaintiff (deity) over the suit Plot No.313 is fully established on the basis of the above unchallenged delivery of possession of suit Plot No.313 as per order dated 05.12.1962 in Execution Case No.7 of 1962 vide Ext.4 to the plaintiff (deity) by the Court and the fixation of the rent of the suit Plot No.313 in the name of the plaintiff (deity) in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981 (Ext.5). 20. The above order dated 05.12.1962 passed in Execution Case No.7 of 1962 (Ext.4) concerning the eviction of the defendants from the suit Plot No.313 and delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiff (deity) by the Court and fixation of rent of the suit Plot No.313 as per order dated 28.05.1984 passed in Vesting Case No.322 of 1981 vide Ext.5 in the name of the plaintiff (deity) has already been reached in its finality due to non-challenge to the same by the defendants. The law concerning the effect of finality of an order/judgment like this matter at hand has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i)
Legal Reasoning
In a case between Kalitirtha Kalipuja Committee Vrs. Sri Balunkeswar Mahesh Bije Attopur (Badasasan) reported in 123 (2017) CLT 480 that, when settlement of land by Member Board of Revenue remained unchallenged and attained finality. The same cannot be challenged in a subsequent proceeding. (ii) In a case between Thirungalingam Vrs. Lingeswaran and another reported in 2025 (3) CCC 32 (S.C.) that, an order of Supreme Court, passed upon judicial consideration, attains finality unless set aside through appropriate appellate or review mechanisms. S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 11 of 13 (iii) In a case between The Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. Vrs. Ravi Santosh Reddy (D) by LRs. reported in 2016 (II) CLR (S.C.) 232 that, when the order was not challenged by the State in higher Courts and hence it attained finality. (iv) In a case between Joydeep Mukharjee Vrs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in II (2011) CLT 68 (S.C.) that, as all these judgments have attained finality, they cannot be permitted to be agitated over and over again. (v) In a case between Asian School of Business Management Trust, BBSR Vrs. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Lrd. reported in 2011 (1) O.J.R. (211) that, when order has attained finality, the same cannot be examined afresh. (vi) In a case between State of Mizoram Vrs. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. reported in 2009 (3) CCC 432 (Guwahati) that, issue decided in a suit between same parties, which attains finality cannot be decided in a subsequent suit between them. (vii) In a case between Government of Goa Vrs. A.H. Jaffar and Sons and another reported in 2008 (2) CCC 102 (S.C.) that, once the decision is rendered intra parties and attains finality, a different view cannot be taken. 21. When, as per the discussions and observations made above, the concurrent findings of title and possession of the plaintiff (deity) over the suit Plot No.313 by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court holding the same under Khata No.180 directing for correction of the suit Plot No.313 from Khata No.181 to Khata No.180 has already been reached in its finality, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions to this matter at hand, the question of interfering with the same through this 2nd S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 12 of 13 appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) including the appellant No.1 (defendant No.3-Achyuta Senapati) does not arise. 22. Therefore, there is no merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants including appellant No.1 (Achyuta Senapati-defendant No.3). The same must fail. 23. In result, this 2nd appeal prosecuted by the appellant No.1 (defendant No.3) is dismissed on contest, but without cost. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court are confirmed. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 24.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 13:16:17 S.A. No.103 of 1998 Page 13 of 13