Civil Suit No. 162 of 2011 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.509 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment & decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.63 of 2016 confirming the judgment & decree dated 5th February, 2016 and 11th February, 2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaleswar in Civil Suit No.162 of 2011-I (22427/14). Subal Chandra Ghadei State of Odisha ---- -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - M/s.D.P.Mohanty (Advocate)
Legal Reasoning
same ex facie appears to be illegal, the Courts below are not at all RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 4 of 7 {{ 5 }} justified in rejecting the claim of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land when there is absolutely no challenge as to the genuineness of the said Tenant Ledger (Ext.7). 8. Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent, inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph-11 of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, submitted that the matter, having been discussed at length, it would appear that the First Appellate Court has very rightly held the Plaintiff as not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the rival pleadings and the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the parties, as placed. 10. The documentary evidence let in by the Plaintiffs reveal that the suit land was recorded in the name of Ex-Zamindar and the total extent of area was Ac.4.63 decimals, which was under Ext.1. The M.S. ROR (Ext.2) shows that the suit land has been recorded in the name of Government under Rakhit Khata and its kisam is Gramya Jugle where there is a note of possession in favour of the Plaintiff. The document relating to the Yadast settlement proved by the Plaintiff (Ext.9) would show that the Plaintiff was not able to file the copy of the lease deed during the settlement and accordingly the Assistant Settlement Officer Page 5 of 7 RSA No.509 of 2016 {{ 6 }} directed for recording of the suit land under Abad Yogya Anabadi Khata with the note of possession in favour of the Plaintiff. The Tenant Ledger (Ext.7) shows that it had been opened in the name of the Plaintiff in respect of C.S. Plot No.113 measuring an area of Ac.0.14 decimals. Though the Plaintiff claims that after vesting, the Ex-Zamindar had submitted the Raffa, which was in faovur of the Plaintiff’s father, said Tenant Ledger in the name of the Plaintiff’s father is not proved but instead, and when it is stated that the Plaintiff’s name was corrected in that Tenant Ledger after the death of his father, said fact has not been proved through document. Ext.7, the Tenant Ledger although shows to have been opened in the name of the Plaintiff, but then the Plaintiff has failed to describe that Ac.0.14 decimals of property, which was in possession of his father at the time of vesting has the nexus with the land shown in the Tenant Ledger (Ext.7). The First Appellate Court, for the above reasons, has held as under:- “It cannot be ruled out that this are measuring ac.0.14 decimals, in whose respect the “Tenant Ledger” was opened might have been recorded in the name of the Plaintiff against different holdings under different it appears an area Khatas. From the MS ROR, measuring Ac.0.28 decimals has been recorded in the name of Government land “Rakhita Khata” with Kisam “Gramya Jungle” and the plaintiff claims that an area measuring Ac.0.14 decimals included in the holding but RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 6 of 7 {{ 7 }} the same has not been properly described to identify the same so as to drawn an executable decree.” The view taken by the First Appellate Court is found to be wholly justified and that being so, provides the answer to the substantial question of law in favour of dismissal of the suit of the Plaintiff. 11. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 12-Dec-2023 14:43:09 RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
For Respondent - Mr.G.N.Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 09.11.2023 : Date of Judgment : 04.12.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment & decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.63 of 2016. RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 1 of 7 {{ 2 }} The Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed Civil Suit No.162 of 2011-I (22427/14) in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaleswar seeking declaration of right, title and interest; declaration that the M.S. ROR No.344 is wrong and illegal and for permanent injunction against the Defendant. 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 Suit. 3. Plaintiff’s Case:- The suit land stood recorded in the name of Ex-Zamindar under Anabadi Khata. Narendra Nath Ghadei, the deceased- father of the Plaintiff took possession of the land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals on Makar Sakranti day of the year 1940. He then made the suit land fit for cultivation. It was leased out on the next date of Saraswati Puja of that year 1940 by Amalnama Patta by the Ex-Zamindar to the father of the Plaintiff and thereafter, he raised betel vine over the same and adjoining land of Ac.0.14 decimals keeping it under enclosure. Narendra Nath Ghadei, during his life time, was paying salami to the Ex-Zamindar and obtaining receipts. The deceased-father of the Plaintiff when was in possession of the land measuring Ac.0.28 decimals, the estate vested with the State. The Ex-Zamindar submitted Raffa in respect of the land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals in the name of the RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 2 of 7 {{ 3 }} father of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Tenant Ledger was opened in his name and he continued to pay the rent to the State obtaining rent receipts to that effect. The father of the Plaintiff died in the year 1973. The Plaintiff since then possessed the land to the knowledge of all concerned. The Tenant Ledger was corrected in the name Plaintiff, who used to pay the rent to the State and obtain receipts. Subsequently, the Plaintiff constructed a thatched house over the suit land, in order to look after the agricultural work. During Settlement Operation, though the Plaintiff filed all the document in his possession and custody, the Settlement Authority recorded the land illegally in the name of the State. They, however, kept the note of illegal possession in respect of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff in the remark column of the Record of Right. The father of the Plaintiff since was a tenant under the Ex-Zamindar and subsequently, became the settled Rayat under the State after coming into force of Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the recording of the suit land in the name of the State is said to be illegal. Having, said all these above, the Plaintiff, while claiming right, title, interest and possession over the suit land with further prayer for permanent injunction against the State as an alternative, the Plaintiff projected the case of acquisition of title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. RSA No.509 of 2016 Page 3 of 7 {{ 4 }} The State contested the suit without filing the written statement. 4. The Trial Court, on the above rival pleadings, having formulated several points, upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary and their evaluation, has found the Plaintiff to have not been established his claim of right, title, interest and right to possess the suit land. Thus, the suit of the Plaintiff, being dismissed, there was an Appeal under section 96 of the Code at the instance of the non-suited Plaintiff, but the said Appeal has also been dismissed. 5. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Plaintiff, who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 6. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the First Appellate Court is right in ignoring Ext.7, which is the Tenant Ledger proved by the Plaintiff in not accepting the claim of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land?” 7. Mr.D.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) submitted that on the face of the Tenant Ledger (Ext.7), merely because the suit land has been recorded in the name of the State in the current settlement, in the record of right, since the