High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK RSA NO.265 OF 2016 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.14 of 2014 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur in C.S. No. 76 of 2012. ……… Basanti Sahoo & Another :::: Appellants -:: VERSUS ::- Madan Malik (since dead) & Others :::: Respondents. Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants … M/s. A.R.Dash, S.Kar, S.K. Nanda-1, B. Mohapatra & K.S. Sahu (Advocates) For Respondents … M/s. B. Mohanty, D. Chhotray & B. Moharana (Advocates) ------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : MR. JUSTICE D.DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 16.02.2024 :: 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 {{ 2 }} assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur in R.F.A. No.14 of 2014. The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed the suit, i.e., C.S. No.76 of 2012 for declaration of his title and possession over the suit land and had also sought for permanent injunction against the Appellants and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 arraigned therein as the Defendants. The suit having been decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur, these two Appellants being the aggrieved Defendant No.4(a) and 4(b) had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code which has also been dismissed. It be stated at this stage that the Predecessor-In-Interest of these Appellants, namely, Pranabandhu Sahoo was the original Defendant No.4 in the suit and on his death during pendency of the suit, these Appellants has been arraigned as Defendant Nos.4(a) and 4(b) who had carried the First Appeal and have now filed this Second Appeal. The Plaintiff, namely, Madan Malik having died in the meantime, his legal representatives have come on record as Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(h). 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. The Plaintiff’s case is that his father was a Choukidar in the locality and he had no landed property of his own. So as per the prevailing Government Rules and Policy, the suit land was given Page 2 of 6 {{ 3 }} to him on lease by the order of the Tahasildar, Jajpur on 22.03.1963. Accordingly, he was issued with the Patta. The same having been verified by the Settlement Authority, the possession of the said land in the field was found with the Plaintiff. It is, however, stated that after the death of father of the Plaintiff, the Defendants gained over the Settlement Authorities, who have thus ignored the field report and ordered for recording of the suit land in their name. Being earned with that Record of Right, as the Defendants created disturbance in the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff, the suit came to be filed. 4. The Defendants in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have pleaded that there was a Suit bearing T.S. no.44 of 1971 and that suit was decreed against Gopabandhu Sahoo. In course of execution of the said decree for specific performance of contract, the court executed a registered sale deed on 12.01.1974 and after that mutation of the land was made in the name of the purchaser, namely, Pitei Sahoo, who is the mother of the Defendants. The Defendant’s mother by virtue of the sale deed dated 08.06.1990 having got the delivery of possession of the suit was possessing the same and after her, these Defendants are so possessing. It is stated that the lease of the land as claimed by the Plaintiff is void. 5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings having framed six issues, upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, Page 3 of 6 {{ 4 }} has answered all those against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiffs and the suit has thus been decreed. The First Appellate Court being moved by the aggrieved Defendant No.4(a) and 4(b) has, on independent examination and assessment of the evidence on record at its level found no ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the findings of the Trial Court being affirmed, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 6. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the concurrent finding on the basis of Exts.3 and 5 is correct and if the same is sufficient to prove the title of the Plaintiff and his possession over the suit schedule property in the absence of other material evidence?” 7. Heard Mr. S. Kar, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondents at length. Keeping in view the submission made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 8. The suit land is under Plot No.1305 and it measures Ac.0.32 dec. This corresponds to Sabik Plot No.837 (Ext.E). The suit plot under ROR No.292 (Ext.A) stands recorded in the name of Pitei Sahoo W/o-Gopabandhu Sahoo. In Sabik settlement, the plot No.837 measuring Ac.0.37 dec., under ROR No.232 stands Page 4 of 6 {{ 5 }} recorded in the name of Zamindar Radhakanta Prasad under Anabadi status. The document-Ext.3 indicates Ac.0.50 dec. of land out of Sabik Plot No.837 had been settled with the father of the Plaintiff on 22.03.1963. The Yadast record (Ext.5 and Ext.D) reveal that the Amin has reported about the possession of Pahali Mallik over the suit land. That Pahali Mallik is none other the father of the Plaintiff. In the year 1971 Dhoi Samal had instituted the suit against Gopabandhu Sahoo, the father of the Defendants for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed in favour of Dhoi Samal. During execution proceeding, the court executed the registered sale deed (Ext.K) in his favour. In that suit, the Plaintiff nor his father was party. Not a scrap of paper has been filed nor any sort of evidence has been tendered by the Defendants to show that the title in respect of the suit land had ever been resting with that Gopabandhu Sahoo, which cuts the case/claim of the Defendants at the root. In that view of the matter when the documents reveal that the land has been leased out in favour of the original Plaintiff and it was recorded in his name and during Yadast stage of the settlement operation in the record, the same position was recognized, the final record of right being published in the name of the Defendants is found to be totally without any base to stand upon. The Plaintiff thus having proved the title in respect of the suit property and as such having the right to possess when the Page 5 of 6 {{ 6 }} Defendants have failed to show their competing title over the said suit land, the Courts below are found to have rightly rendered the findings on the basis of Ext.3 and 5 holding the same as sufficient to prove the title of the Plaintiff and his possession over the suit property. The answer to the substantial question of law is thus rendered in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, which results the confirmation of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 9. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. H S/d (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 6 of 6