The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 & Procedure assailing 17.10.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, Phulbani in R.F.A. No.04 of 2014, confirming the judgment dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balliguda in C.S. No.43 of 2012. the ---- Apasari Pradhan …. Appellant -versus- Arjuna Pradhan …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Biplab Mohanty (Advocates) For Respondent - ------- CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DATE OF HEARING :07.02.2024:: DATE OF JUDGMENT:29.02.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 & 17.10.2015 respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, Phulbani in R.F.A. No.04 of 2014. The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.43 of 2012) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balliguda for declaration of her right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 Page 1 of 6 {{ 2 }} land with other reliefs arraigning the Respondent as the sole Defendant. The suit stood dismissed. So the 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, who has 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 Suit. 3. Plaintiff’s case is that she is the owner in possession of the suit land. The Defendant has no right, title, interest or even the right to possesses the same. The suit land is the ancestral property of the Plaintiff, and it stood recorded in the name of Harish Chandra Pradhan and Lalita Pradhan. Harish Chandra died long before the institution of the suit and Lalita is unheard since long. Ruadei Pradhan is the mother of the Plaintiff, who too is dead. The Plaintiff claims to be the sole successor of the deceased Harish Chandra Pradhan. Her case is that since Lalita Pradhan is her paternal uncle and his whereabout are not known since long, she has also succeeded to the share of Lalita over the suit land. Thus, she claims to be the owner in possession of the entire suit land. 4. It is stated that on 12.05.2012, the Defendant with his two sons entered into a portion of the suit land and unloaded some stones and sands. The Plaintiff, therefore, raised objection on the very next day. The Defendant, however, threatened her and thereafter, the Plaintiff had to inform the local police in writing. Later on, being advised, the Plaintiff made some enquiry for filing the suit. During then, it came to be known that the Defendant had obtained a sale deed in relation to the suit land from Ruadei Pradhan and Page 2 of 6 R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 {{ 3 }} Lalita Pradhan and accordingly, has mutated the suit land in his favour. The Plaintiff states that the sale deed on the basis of which, the record of right in respect of the suit land has been corrected in the name of the Defendant is the fictitious one and not binding on her. The sale was not followed by the delivery in possession of the suit land and is being in possession of the Plaintiff who has never been ousted at any point of time. 5. The Defendant in his written statement while traversing the plaint averment has accepted the status of the Plaintiff as the daughter of Ruadei Pradhan through Harish Chandra Pradhan. It is also stated that Lalita Pradhan is an agnatic brother of Harish Chandra Pradhan. According to the Defendant, late Harish Chandra was a convict and after his release from jail, he came to village Dakedi and as by then, he had no house or land in village Dakedi. He and his family took shelter in the house of Lalita, who was then a minor orphan. Harish Chandra died when the Plaintiff was a school going children and her mother died 15 years before the suit. The Plaintiff eloped with one Durjyadhan Pradhan of village Jubaguda and gave birth to a child whereafter she deserted her husband and kept relationship with another person of village Gutingia. It is further stated that Harish Chandra influenced the Settlement Authority and got his name recorded in respect of the house and the land of Lalita Pradhan jointly. Subsequently, Harish Chandra and Lalita effected partition and the land under Plot No.836 fell to the share of Lalita whereas Plot No.837 came to the share of Harish Chandra. Accordingly, they peacefully possessed the said land. In the year 1985, the Plaintiff and her widow mother being in need of money in order to defray the domestic expenses, approached the Defendant to help them in tiding over the situation. The Defendant accordingly advanced some money on different occasions, and it was towards the advance sale consideration amount for Page 3 of 6 R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 {{ 4 }} purchase of a portion of the suit land. Subsequently, the Defendant purchased a portion of the land from out of the land under Plot No.837 from the mother of the Plaintiff for valuable consideration. On 21.04.1986, the sale deed was registered. After the same, the mother of the Plaintiff delivered possession of that purchased land to the Defendant, who is thus in possession of the same since then. It is further stated that Lalita Pradhan sold his entire share of land i.e. Plot No.836 to the Defendant by registered sale deed no.600 of 1986 and the possession of the same being delivered to the Defendant, she is also in peaceful possession of the same. On 26.06.1991, the Defendant applied for mutation in his favour recognizing the purchase. The prayer being allowed; the suit land stands recorded in the name of the Defendant. 6. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed three issues. Rightly, taking up issue no.2 which concerns with the Plaintiff’s claim of right, title, interest over the suit land and her possession vis-à-vis the claim of the Defendant as to have acquired right, title, interest over the property by virtue of his purchase; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, the finding has been rendered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant. This answer had led to the ultimate result of dismissal of the suit. 7. The Plaintiff being non-suited having carried the First Appeal has also lost therein. 8. Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant instead of pressing the two substantial questions of law as indicated in Ground No.8 in Memorandum of Appeal submitted that the Courts below have erred both on fact and law in accepting the claim/case of the Defendant as to have purchased the suit property by the registered sale deeds. He submitted that on the face of the overwhelming evidence on record as regards the possession of Page 4 of 6 R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 {{ 5 }} the Plaintiff over the suit land, the Courts below ought not to have ruled in favour of the purchase of the property in question by the Defendant. He, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 10. During the Trial, two documents were produced from the side of the Defendant, which have been marked Ext.X & Y. Ext.X is in relation to receipt of some money by the Plaintiff from the Defendant and Ext.Y is another receipt showing payment of money by the Defendant to the mother of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff although has denied some signature in Ext.X. On comparison of her signature appearing in the plaint supported by affidavit as well as another signature given in Court, the denial of the Plaintiff has not been accepted by the Trial Court. The Defendant when has proved the original Registered Sale Deeds Ext. K & L, which has been executed by Ruadei Pradhan, the mother of the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant and Ext.L executed by Lalita in favour of the Defendant, the Courts below have accepted those documents to be free from any infirmity. These two Sale Deeds being registered as required under law, the presumption as to their genuineness and due execution etc. stand attached. The Plaintiff thus was carrying the burden of proving all those facts in impeaching those sale deeds. There is neither any specific pleading in the plaint to the above effect nor any such evidence has been let in. when also with the available evidence, the conduct of the Plaintiff does not appear to be clean. Thus when there stands the concurrent findings of fact upholding the sale deeds standing in favour of the Defendant; this Court is unable to cull out any legal infirmity therein nor it appears that the Courts below in Page 5 of 6 R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 {{ 6 }} deciding said issue either read something extraneous into the evidence or have omitted to take into account any such material evidence touching upon the subject. The finding on the above score appears to be well in order. For all the aforesaid, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appeal merits admission to answer the substantial questions of law as pointed out above. 11.
Decision
In the result the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge. Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 05-Mar-2024 10:56:24 R.S.A. No.139 of 2016 Page 6 of 6