High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK RSA NO.145 of 2017 In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur in RFA No.49 of 2014 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandikhole in C.S. No.75 of 2011. ……… Paramananda Satpathy & Others :::: Appellants -:: VERSUS ::- Satyanarayan Satpathy & Others :::: Respondents Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants … M/s.A. Routray, For Respondents … ---- ---- ---- (Advocate) ------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 07.02.2024 :: Date of Judgment: 29.02.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur, in R.F.A. No.49 of 2014. {{ 2 }} These Appellants as the Plaintiffs had filed the Suit (Civil Suit No.75 of 2011) arraigning the Respondents as the Defendants seeking declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the land described in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the plaint with further prayer to declare that the Respondents (Defendants) have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and for confirmation of possession with other consequential reliefs. The suit having been dismissed, the Appellants being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs had carried an Appeal under section 96 of the Code which too has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellants who have remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs case is that the land in schedule ‘A’ originally owned and possessed by ex-landlord Madhupur Raja, namely, Birabara Narayan Chandra Dhira Narendra. One Damodar Satpathy had been inducted as tenant on 28.02.1935. When he was possessing the schedule ‘A’ land on lease, Raja filed a Suit bearing no.364/42 in the Court of Munsif, Jajpur for recovery of possession and declaration of title over the said land. The said suit was decreed on contest on 17.12.42. Raja Narayan Chandra Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} Dhira Narendra was declared as the rightful owner in possession of the suit land along other undisputed land along with other undisputed land. Then said Damodar Satpathy and Basanti Satpathy approached Raja for granting Patta. Raja was pleased to grant Patta in favour of Basanti Devi, the mother of the Plaintiff on 20.07.1946. After that the possession of the said land was delivered to Basanti Devi and the land was used for agriculture purpose. Basanti Devi accordingly paid rent to the Ex-landlord. After abolition of the Estate, the land vested in the name of Basanti Devi. She regularly paid rent to the State and obtained receipts. The Tenant Ledger was opened in her name basing upon the Ekpadia submitted by the Ex-landlord. Except the suit schedule land, all the other properties which were leased out to Basanti by the Ex-landlord were duly recorded in the name of the Plaintiff after the death of Basanti Devi. But the suit land has been wrongly recorded in the name of the Defendant. So, the Plaintiff preferred Revision numbered as R.P. Case No.927 of 2005 and R.P. Case No.955 of 2006 before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement under section 15 of the Odisha Survey Settlement Act, 1958, which remained pending. However, taking advantage of the wrong recording since the Defendants tried to entere upon the suit land, the Plaintiffs had to file the suit. Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} 4. The Defendants in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have denied to have any knowledge regarding the decree passed in Title Suit No.364 of 2012 in the Court of the Munsif, Jajpur. The Defendants assert that the ex- landlord had never granted Patta in favour of Basanti Devi, the mother of the Plaintiff and she was never delivered with the possession of the said land. It is stated that the ancestors of the Defendants were in possession of the suit land and now those properties are in the possession the Defendants, who are paying rent to the State regularly and obtaining the rent receipts to that effect. The Defendants have further stated that the tenant ledger was never opened in the name of Basanti Devi and she was completely a stranger to the suit land. Schedule ‘A’ land is stated to have been recorded in the name of Alekha Satapthy and Basudeb Satpathy in the Hal Record of Right whereas its corresponding Sabik record stood in the name of the fathers of the Defendants, namely, Paban Satpathy and Rusi Satpathy. Schedule ‘B’ land is recorded in the name of Defendant No.8, namely, Narayan Satapthy in the Hal Record of Right whereas its corresponding Sabik Record of Right was in the name of Ananda Satpathy. According to the Defendants, the Record of Right have been correctly prepared by the Settlement Authorities Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} considering the flow of title and possession of these Defendants from the time of their ancestors. 5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Rightly taking up Issue Nos.3,4,5 and 6 together which cover the rival claim of the parties as regards the right, title, interest and possession of the suit properties which, in fact, are intertwined; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, finally the answer has been rendered against the Plaintiff. Said answer has decided the fate of the suit, which stood dismissed. The Plaintiffs thus being non-suited had carried the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court in the backdrop of the rival pleadings proceeding to appreciate the evidence let in by the parties at its level independently has found no justifiable reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Trial Court. Resultantly, the First Appeal has been dismissed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that when the Plaintiff has proved that the tenancy has been created in favour of Basanti Devi by the ex-landlord with the execution of Hata Patta for and on behalf of the ex-Landlord followed by acceptance of rent and placement of said Basanit Devi in possession of the property, in question, which continued, as such, the Courts below have gone wrong in negating the case/claim of Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} the Plaintiff. He also submitted that the tenant ledger obtained from the Tahasildar being admissible in evidence to prove the title and possession, which was prepared on the basis of Ekpadia submitted by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of the estate, the Courts below, ought not to have disregarded the case/claim of the Plaintiff. He, therefore, urged for admission of the Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 8. The very case of the Plaintiff is that Basanti Devi W/o Damodar was given lease of the land under a Hatta Patta dated 20.07.1946. That Hatta Patta has been proved as Ext.11. It is further stated that when the lands other than the suit land which find mention in that Hatta Patta (Ext.11) has been recorded in the name of the Plaintiff , the suit land has been left out and that is because of the fact that the Defendants taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiffs as they not residing in the suit village have managed to record their name wrongly in respect of the suit land so as to grab the same. The Hatta Patta (Ext.11) is an unregistered one. It reveals therefrom that the donor was one Prana Krushna Mishra, who was not the landlord. Ext.11 does not contain the signature of the landlord as stated by the Plaintiff. Exts.3,4 and 5 are merely the information slips of tenancy ledger Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} and plot index and thus not the primary evidence in support/proof of said facts. The Courts below, as it appears, after having made detail analysis of evidence on record from every possible angle have independently arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. This Court giving a careful and anxious reading to the discussion of the evidence as made by the Courts below in their judgments is unable to cull out any such perversity therein. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also in course of hearing was not able to place before this court any such important evidence available on record as to have been overlooked or sideline by the Courts below or that while appreciating the evidence, the Courts below have read something extraneous into the evidence or that the evidence as available has been wrongly read or erroneously viewed in order to arrive at a conclusion that the findings suffer from the vide of perversity. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no such legal justification/ reason to hold that the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Appeal merits admission to answer the substantial question of law as pointed out by him cannot be countenanced with. Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} 10. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Himansu (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Mar-2024 19:58:03 Page 8 of 8