The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 150 of 2025 An appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. Debendra Kumar Jena --------------- .… Appellant Ramarani Das and another ..… Respondents -Versus- Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : M/s.B.C. Panda, B.B. Routray, S. Mishra J.N.Panda, A. Tripathy& A. Mishra, Advocates For Respondents : _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 19.08.2025
Legal Reasoning
This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgement. The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the sale deed No.1856 dated 18.12.2000 as void along with incidental relief was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. Page 1 of 9 2. For convenience, the parties are described as per their respective status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated is that in December, 2000, the defendant No.2 agreed to purchase the suit land from the plaintiff. Consideration was fixed at Rs.30,000/-. On 18.12.2000, the plaintiff executed a sale deed in the name of the defendant No.1 (wife of defendant No.2) at the instance and as proposed by defendant No.2. The deed was executed and endorsement-ticket was handed over to defendant No.2, who thereafter brought the original sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar through defendantNo.1 and retained it. It was stipulated in the deed that the amount of consideration was to be paid in the residence of defendants and passing of title as well as delivery of possession was made subject to payment of the consideration money. He further claims that the plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the consideration amount or to execute deed of cancellation to invalidate the sale deed but the defendants did not pay the amount for as long as seven years.. As such, the plaintiff cancelled the sale deed by executing a registered Page 2 of 9 cancellation deed on 27.01.2007 under intimation to the defendants. The defendants however attempted to mutate the sale deed by filing mutation case before the Tahasildar. The defendants also forcibly attempted to possess the suit land and proceeded under the OLR act. On 11.02.2014, defendant No.2 ascertained that the entire consideration amount had been paid and also claimed title and possession. When the defendants attempted to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, the suit was filed. 4. Pursuant to notice,the defendants appeared, filed a common written statement and asserted therein that the plaintiff had delivered possession of the suit land after execution of the sale deed on 18.12.2000. The allegation that consideration of Rs.30,000/-was not paid, was denied by stating that the same was paid on the day following the date of registration of the sale deed in the house of defendant No.2 at Khaparakhai. It is only after receiving consideration amount that the plaintiff handed over the ticket to the defendants along with mutation ROR, on the basis of which defendant No.1 got the original Page 3 of 9 sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar. The defendant No.1 also paid the deficit stamp and registration fee as the plaintiff refused to pay the same on the ground that he had transferred the suit land. Further they filed a conversion case vide OLR Case No.107 of 2005-06 and paid the conversion dues but the plaintiff filed objection. The plaintiff filed objection in all revenue proceeding to prevent defendant No.1 from mutating the suit land in her favour. The cancellation deed executed by the plaintiff is void. Further, the suit was filed after a lapse of fourteen years only because the land has become more valuable on account of passing of the National Highway. 5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the court below framed the following issues for determination:- “i. Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law? ii. Whether there is any cause of action to file this suit? iii. Whether the plaintiff the consideration amount of Rs.30,000 from the defendant No.1? received iv. Whether the sale executed between the plaintiff and defendants on 18.12.2000 the conveyed a valid title upon Page 4 of 9 defendant No.1 with respect to the suit land? v. Whether the possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendants after execution of sale deed? vi. Whether the cancellation of sale deed dated 27.01.2007 before Sub-Registrar Anandapur was valid? vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration on the title and possession over the suit land? viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to the relief of permanent the injunction defendants from entering the suit land? against ix. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?” 6. The court below took up Issue No.3 for consideration at the outset. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court conclusively held that the plaintiff could not produce any valid proof to substantiate his claim of making repeated requests for payment of consideration after execution of sale deed. The oral evidence of the witnesses also did not corroborate his testimony. Handing over of the endorsement ticket after execution of the sale deed was admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, on preponderance of probabilities, it was held that the question of payment of Page 5 of 9 consideration tilts in favour of the defendants. On Issue No.4, the trial court held that execution of sale deed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 fulfils all the essential pre requisites for valid saleand confirmedthe valid title of defendant No.1 on the date of execution of the sale deed. On the issue of possession, the trial court held that the probability leans in favour of the defendants. On the question of limitation, it was held that the cause of action having first arisen on 27.01.2007, the suit was grossly delayed having been brought in the year 2014. It was further held that cancellation deed dated 27.01.2007 unilaterally executed by the plaintiff did not divest the title of defendant No.1. On such findings, the trial court dismissed the suit. 7. The plaintiff carried appeal to the District Court. Learned 1st Appellate Court confirmed the aforementioned findings of the trial court as he did not find any justified reason to interfere. The appeal was thus dismissed confirming order of the 1st Appellate Court. 8. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Page 6 of 9 9.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B.C. Panda, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. 10. Mr. Panda would argue that the sale deed was executed but the consideration amount was never paid. The fact that the plaintiff subsequently executed a deed of cancellation supports his plea that the consideration was never paid. Secondly, the defendant No.1 being the vendee did not step in to the witness box for which both the courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against her. Further, the 1st Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff did not prove that he was interested to cross examine the vendee ignoring the fact that he had not stepped into the witness box in the first place. 11. This Court has perused the impugned judgements carefully. As already stated, the trial court has meticulously analysed the evidence on record to render its findings under each issue separately. It has been held that the main plea taken by the plaintiff that the consideration amount was not paid by defendant No.1 could not be satisfactorily proven by him. Page 7 of 9 12. This is essentially a finding of fact rendered by the trial court and confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. It has not been demonstrated before this Court as to how this finding is wrong either being perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The ground that the courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the defendant No.1 for not stepping into the witness box would not hold good in the present case having regard to the fact that the plaintiff himself could not prove his case to the satisfaction of the Courts by adducing cogent evidence.The other findings relating to invalidity of unilateral cancellation deed and limitation are also not such as would persuade this Court to interfere. 13. The specific finding of the trial court as confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court that the sale deed was valid and it conferred valid title on the vendee (defendant No.1) cannot be dislodged for the reason that the defendant No.1 had not stepped into the witness box. This being a Second Appeal, it need not be over- emphasized that interference by this Court would not be permissible against concurrent findings of fact, unless the Page 8 of 9 same are shown to be demonstratively perverse, against the weight of evidence on record or such as no prudent person would arrive. For the reasons indicated, this Court finds that the present case does not fall within such parameters. 14. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference whatsoever. 15. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed being not admitted. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 18:38:43 Page 9 of 9