Civil Suit No. 466 of 2012 · The High Court · 2018
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. NO.79 OF 2019 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 20th August 2018 and 31st August 2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Baleswar in R.F.A. No.476 of 2014 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2014 and 28.08.2014 respectively passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baleswar in Civil Suit No. 466 of 2012. ---- Bhagirathi Behera …. Appellant -versus- Krushnamani Das (Since dead) by her LRs. …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): ============================================== For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. U.C. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH Date of Hearing : 21.12.2023 :: Date of Judgment: 08.01.2024 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 and decree dated 20th August 2018 and 31st August 2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Baleswar in R.F.A. No.476 of 2014. The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.466 of 2012- (I) in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baleswar. The suit was for declaration of the right, title, interest over the suit land and Page 1 of 6 RSA No.79 of 2019 {{ 2 }} for permanent injunction with further prayer to declare the Major Settlement (M.S.) Record of Right in respect of the suit property in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents arraigned as the sole Defendant is null and void. During pendency of the said suit, the sole Defendant (Krushnamani Das) having died, these Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being her legal representatives had been brought on record as Defendant Nos. 1(ka) to 1(ga). 2. The suit having been dismissed, this Appellant as the unsuccessful Plaintiff 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 Appellant (Plaintiff) who has remained as the unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 3. 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. 4. Plaintiff’s case is that one Krushna Mohan Rana was the owner in possession of the suit land. In the current settlement, the land was recorded in his name. Krushna Mohan while in possession of the suit land and other lands as owner had alienated different extents of land to different persons on different occasions by executing sale-deeds. The suit land is said to have been sold by Krushna Mohan Rana to the mother of RSA No.79 of 2019 Page 2 of 6 {{ 3 }} the Defendants namely, Krushnamani Das by executing registered sale- deed dated 13.04.1951. Krushnamani while in possession of the suit property, sold the same to Jagadananda Panda by executing registered sale-deed dated 25.03.1957 and it is said that she delivered possession of the said land to Jagadananda. Out of that purchased land i.e. Ac.0.19 decimals, land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals under Current Settlement (C.S.) Plot No.629 was sold by Jagadananda to one Maheswar Jena, which was towards the southern side, who subsequently sold it to one Shantilata. It is stated that the said land sold being towards southern side of the suit plot does not cover the suit land. The rest area of Ac.0.05 decimals situated towards the northern side of the suit plot No.629 was subsequently sold by Jagadananda in favour of the Plaintiff, his father and brother namely, Brundabana and Arjuna. Accordingly, they were delivered with the possession of the same. The Plaintiff claims to have remained in possession of the suit land with his father and brothers since the time of their purchase. It is stated that the sold land under deed No.127 relates to the suit land. Since dissension arose in the family, the suit land and other joint family properties were partitioned amicably between the Plaintiff, his father and brothers and they were allotted with different portions of lands in their respective shares which they possessed. The Plaintiff claims that the suit land was allotted to him and he thus possessed the same. It is further stated that two brothers of the Plaintiff RSA No.79 of 2019 Page 3 of 6 {{ 4 }} had pre-deceased their father and they died issueless. So, on the death of the father, the Plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit land as also other properties of the family and is in possession of the same. During settlement operation, the father of the Plaintiff was looking after the affairs as the Plaintiff was residing in Kolkata to earn his livelihood and neither mother of the Defendants namely Krushnamani Das nor Jagadananda Panda had advanced any claim for recording of the suit land in their name. The father of the Plaintiff submitted the registered sale- deed and other document in support of their possession. The Settlement Authority however, finally directed recording of the suit land in the name of the original Defendants. The settlement record relating to the suit land is thus said to be void. 5. 6. The Defendants did not contest the suit. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate court having gone through the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the Plaintiff and testing the same in the touchstone of the pleadings have arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the suit land and therefore is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. 7. Heard Mr. U.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondent assisted the Court in the admission hearing. I have perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below. RSA No.79 of 2019 Page 4 of 6 {{ 5 }} 8. The Plot Index, Ext.6 reveals that M.S. Plot No.662 is corresponding to C.S. Plot No.692. The plaint schedule is not provided in any sketch map specifying the said land of Ac.0.05 decimals out of Ac.0.47 decimals of land under M.S. Plot No.462 sold under Ext.4. The sale-deed Ext.4 is also not having any sketch map, it has been pleaded that Jagadananda Panda had sold away land out of C.S. Plot No.692 to Maheswar Jena to extent of Ac.014 decimals. Said extents of land are stated to be recorded in the name of Shantilata, the vendee of Maheswar Jena during Major Settlement. The M.S. Record of Right in favour of Shantilata have however not been filed. Therefore, the Courts below are absolutely right in holding that there cannot be a definite finding specifying Ac.0.05 decimals of land covered under Ext.4 in saying that the present suit land was sold under Ext.4 by Jagadananda to the Plaintiff, his father and brothers and not in favour of Maheswar Jena. Said finding thus is not at all found to a faulty one. As stated by the Plaintiff, Krushna Mohan Rana had alienated the suit land in favour of the original Defendant namely Krushnamani Das. There is nothing to show that Krushna Mohan Rana had the title over the suit land so as to convey to Krushnamani. The C.S. ROR has not been filed to show the ownership of Krushna Mohan. When the original area of C.S. No.692 is said to be Ac.0.19 decimals, the area of the corresponding M.S. Plot No.462 is Ac.047 decimals. In that view of the matter, the RSA No.79 of 2019 Page 5 of 6 {{ 6 }} courts below having found that the plea of the Plaintiff that the land sold to Maheswar Jena and subsequently to Shantilata has already been recorded in their name during Major Settlement is not acceptable. The view so taken when firmly stands, there is no pleading as to how the area of Ac.019 decimals of land of C.S. plot was enhanced to Ac.0.47 decimals during M.S. The suit land when is pleaded to be part of C.S. Plot No.692 and M.S. Plot No.462, the plaint does not carry any sketch map to identify the part plot nor it has been so described in the plaint schedule providing the boundary. In that view of the matter, the suit is hit under the provision of Order-7 Rule-3 of the Code. 9. With the aforesaid, this court finds that the findings of the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the First Appellate court in non-suiting the Plaintiff to be the outcome of just and proper appreciation of evidence and their surfaces absolutely no perversity therein, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents fails. 10. In the result, this Court finds that there arises no such substantial question of law for being answered, meriting admission of this Appeal; thus, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Narayan Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2024 15:25:57 (D. Dash), Judge. RSA No.79 of 2019 Page 6 of 6