Nilagiri Minna Rao v. Malliboina Nagamani

17.03.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

The appellant and respondent in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiff and defendant before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 and respondent and appellant respectively before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011.

The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 against the defendant(respondent in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

The properties described in the schedule of the plaint are the suit properties. As per the case of the plaintiff, while, he(plaintiff) was minor in the year 1966, the suit properties were purchased jointly by the minor

plaintiff represented though this father guardian and one Ratnalu Arjun of Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh through registered Sale Deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966. Since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, he(plaintiff) was possessing the suit properties exclusively through his father guardian, as his co-purchaser, Ratnalu Arjun was a resident of distant place, i.e., Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh and he was residing there. He(plaintiff) and his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun applied for mutation of the suit properties to their names by filing Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 and the said Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 was allowed on dated 25.06.1967 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada in favour of the plaintiff and his co-purchaser Ratnalu Arjun, but, as the plaintiff was minor by then, for which, RoR of the suit properties, was prepared by the Tahasil authorities in the name of his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun, which was unknown to the minor plaintiff.

When one Himirika Rupa created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties, for which, he(plaintiff) filed a suit for injunction against Himirika Rupa in respect of the suit properties. That suit vide T.S. No.51 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Rayagada and Himirika Rupa was injuncted permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. Since the date of attaining majority in the year 1971 till yet, he(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties independently without any guardianship. When, the co-purchaser of the plaintiff, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun was incapable to possess the suit properties, then, he(Ratnalu Arjun) requested plaintiff to purchase his half share in the suit properties from him, to which, the plaintiff agreed and the consideration amount thereof was fixed as Rs.6,500/-. The plaintiff paid the said consideration amount to Ratnalu Arjun in two installments and he(plaintiff) became the exclusive owner of the suit properties, but, unfortunately before execution and registration of sale deed in respect of the share of Ratnalu Arjun in favour of the plaintiff, the said Ratnalu Arjun died.

Soon after the death of Ratnalu Arjun, his wife also died. Ratnalu Arjun and his wife died without issue. He(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties exclusively since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966 continuously till yet. As, Ratnalu Arjun and his wife had no issue, therefore, after the death of Ratnalu Arjun and his wife, their interest in the suit properties had extinguished and as per law, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit properties. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties was confirmed through the decree passed in T.S. No.51 of 2001 against Himirika Rupa. When, the plaintiff came to know that, one R. Rama Rao of Gummalaxmipuram has been set up by the local Real Estate Brokers to grab the suit properties through execution and registration of illegal sale deed in respect of the suit properties in their favour, then, he(plaintiff) filed an application before the District Sub-registrar, Rayagada praying for non-acceptance of any deed for sale in respect of the suit properties for registration, if executed by any stranger.

For which, the land brokers by that time could not succeed in their attempt, but, subsequently on dated 01.09.2007 at about 12.00 Noon, the defendant came to the suit properties with some labourers and dug the earth in the same and when the plaintiff came to know the same, he(plaintiff) protested against the said illegal actions of the defendant, then, the defendant expressed that, she has acquired title over a portion of suit properties by purchasing the same from R. Rama Rao of Gummalaxmipuram. So, he(plaintiff) filed the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 against the defendant praying for declaration his right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant permanently from entering into the suit properties.

Having been noticed from the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007, the defendant contested the same by filing her written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint taking her stands specifically that, the plaintiff is not the purchaser of the suit properties and he(plaintiff) was/is not in possession over the same. The suit properties were purchased exclusively by Ratnalu Arjun. Since the date of purchase, Ratnalu Arjun was possessing the suit properties exclusively being the exclusive owner thereof. So, the suit properties were mutated in the name of Ratnalu Arjun in Mutation Case No.186 of 1967. The plaintiff has not filed any petition at any point of time before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for insertion of his name with Ratnalu Arjun in the RoR of the suit properties. R. Rama Rao was the duly adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun. R. Rama Rao has sold the suit properties to her(defendant) through RSD No.1395 of 2006 and she(defendant) is in possession over the same after purchasing from R. Rama Rao.

Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether ten numbers of issues were framed by the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 and the said issues are:- i. ii. I S S U E S Is the suit maintainable? Has the plaintiff got cause of action to file the suit? iii. Has the suit been properly valued and have proper Court Fees been paid? iv. Has the plaintiff validly acquired the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun over the suit land for consideration amount of Rs.6,500/-? v. Is R. Rama Rao the adopted son and therefore the legal heir of Ratnalu Arjun and has he succeed to the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun over the suit land in such capacity? vi. Has the vendor of the defendant, namely, Nilakantha Sahukar acquired valid title and possession over the suit land or any portion thereof by registered Sale Deed No.1942 of 2005? vii. Has the defendant by virtue of registered Sale Deed No.1208 of 2007 and 1395 of 2006 acquired any title and possession in respect of the suit land or any portion thereof from Nilakantha Sahukar and R. Rama Rao respectively? viii. Has the plaintiff alternatively acquired title over the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun by the doctrine of outster? ix. Is the plaintiff in exclusive possession over the suit land? x. To what relief(s), the plaintiff is entitled to?

In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant, he(plaintiff) examined five witnesses from his side including him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 15. On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant examined three witnesses from her side including herself as D.W.1 and exhibited several documents on her behalf vide Exts.A to J.

After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff except issue nos.4 and 8 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned trial court in the issues, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part on contest against the defendant and injuncted to the defendant restraining her(defendant) permanently from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties, but, refused to declare the title of the plaintiff over the entire suit properties assigning the reasons that, “The plaintiff has been able to prove successfully his possession over the suit properties as well as the absence of possession of the defendant in the same, but, he(plaintiff) has failed to establish his title in respect of the half share of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties. Because, the suit properties were purchased jointly through RSD No.245 dated

30.03.1966 by the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun and the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties has not been transferred legally through a deed of conveyance to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff is in possession over the entire suit properties including the half share of Ratnalu Arjun therein and the defendant has failed to establish that, her vendor, i.e., R. Rama Rao was the adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun as well as his successor. For which, she(defendant) has failed to establish her interest in the suit properties, as she(defendant) has failed to establish that, her vendor was the adopted son and successor of Ratnalu Arjun. When, it is established that, on the basis of the sale deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966, the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun had jointly purchased the suit properties and they had joint interest in the same and when, there is no evidence that, there was any partition between Ratnalu Arjun and the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and when there is no proof that, the suit properties were divided / partitioned between the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun and when, it is established that, the plaintiff is in possession over the entire suit properties and when, the half share of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties has not been transferred lawfully to the plaintiff, then at this juncture, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest over the entire suit properties, but, he(plaintiff) is entitled to protect his possession in the suit properties against the defendant, as the defendant has not been able to establish the interest of her vendor in the suit properties to transfer her(defendant).”

On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid part judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the defendant challenged the same preferring the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011 being appellant against the plaintiff arraying him(plaintiff) as respondent.

After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, learned 1st appellate court allowed that 1st appeal vide RFA No.34 of 2011 of the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2011 and

13.10.2011 respectively passed by the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 as per its judgment and decree dated 20.12.2014 and

27.12.2014 respectively and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 on contest assigning the reasons that,

the plaintiff not being a heir of Ratnalu Arjun cannot question the successorship of R. Rama Rao as the successor of Ratnalu Arjun. The execution of the sale deeds vide Exts.E, A and B in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant had not been contested nor disputed. After the death of Ratnalu Arjun, his brother’s son, i.e., R. Rama Rao even without deed of adoption could succeed his interest in the suit land. The findings of the learned trial court being contrary to the same cannot be sustained. So, the findings of the learned trial court that, the defendant’s vendor, i.e., R. Rama Rao had no interest in the suit properties to transfer cannot be accepted. By mere possession, the plaintiff cannot upset the valid deeds for sale, under which, title of the property has passed. For which, the plaintiff neither can claim the relief of injunction nor the same can be granted in his favour. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree, i.e., permanent injunction passed by the learned trial court against the defendant cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal of the defendant is allowed and part judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff for injunction is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated

20.12.2014 and 27.12.2014 respectively passed by the learned 1st appellate court in R.F.A. No.34 of 2011 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellant against the defendant arraying her(defendant) as respondent.

This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law, i.e.:- (i) Whether in absence of proof of adoption, the transaction including Ext.E confers right, title and interest on the parties? (ii) Whether in view of the specific case of the defendant in written statement at paragraph-5 that, the adoption took place in the year 1974 and R. Rama Rao was the adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun, lower appellate court was right in inventing a third case in dismissing the suit?

I have already heard from learned counsel for appellant(plaintiff) and learned counsel for the respondent(defendant).

When, as per the findings and observations made by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in their respective judgments and decrees on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and materials available in the record, the aforesaid both the formulated substantial questions of law are inter-linked having ample nexus with each other, then, both the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder :-

Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the suit properties were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun through sale deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966(Ext.2) and when plaintiff is not the successor or the family member of Ratnalu Arjun and when, there is no deed of conveyance regarding transfer of the interest of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and when, the RoR in the name of Ratnalu Arjun in respect of the suit properties itself cannot create his title over the entire suit properties in faovur of Ratnalu Arjun, then at this juncture, the concurrent findings and observations of made by the learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court in their respective judgments and decrees that, the plaintiff has failed to establish his exclusive title over the entire suit properties and for that reason, he(plaintiff) is not entitled to get the decree of declaration of title over the entire suit properties cannot be held as erroneous. Therefore, the question of interfering with the said part of findings of the learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court refusing to grant the decree of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire suit properties cannot be interfered in this 2nd appeal.

So far as the decree of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties against the defendant is concerned, it is the specific findings of the learned trial court in the judgment and decree, after appreciating of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties that, since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, the plaintiff had/has been possessing the suit properties, but, the defendant is not in possession over the same. For which, the learned trial court passed the decree for permanent injunction against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. To which, the learned 1st appellate court reversed as per the findings made in Para No.10 of the impugned judgment and decree passed in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.34 of 2011 assigning the reasons that,

Mere possession of the plaintiff cannot upset the valid deed of sale under which the defendant acquired title in the suit properties, WHICH INDIRECTLY CORROBORATES TO THE FINDINGS IN FAVOUR OF POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES MADE BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT. As such, the findings and the observations made by the learned trial court in respect of the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and absence of possession of defendant in the same has also been corroborated by the learned 1st appellate court through the aforesaid observation, i.e., mere possession of the plaintiff cannot upset the valid sale deed under which the defendant has acquired title in the suit properties.

The well corroborated un-assailed testimonies of P.W. Nos.1 and 4 is going to show that, the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit properties since 30.03.1966, in which, neither the defendant nor her vender R. Rama Rao had/has possession.

Now, the question arises, when the suit of the plaintiff is for declaration and permanent injunction and when, the plaintiff failed to get the decree for declaration of his title, then at this juncture, whether the plaintiff will be entitled to get the decree for injunction against the defendant as per law. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Rusi Kumar Sahu and others vrs. Sri Sri Rasa @ Rahas Behari Thakura and others: reported in 1987(2) OLR-126 that, When the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact, whether other reliefs can be granted by it or not(Para-8) (ii) In a case between Prafulla Chandra Mishra vrs. Kanhu Charan Mohanty and others : reported in 2024(II) OLR-276 that, When, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact, whether, the other reliefs can be granted or not.

As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is established that, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit properties since 30.03.1966, but, neither the defendant nor her vendor, i.e., R. Rama Rao was/is in possession over the same, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and the Apex Court, even though, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree for declaration of his title over the entire suit properties, still then, he(plaintiff) is entitled to get the decree for injunction against the defendant on the basis of his possession.

When, the learned trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 in part against the defendant for injunction, refusing the prayer for declaration of title, then at this juncture, the learned 1st appellate court should not have reversed the same, as the part judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was not erroneous in any manner for the reasons assigned above. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court in RFA No.34 of 2011 through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

Therefore, there is merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The same must succeed.

In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is allowed on contest. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court in RFA No.34 of 2011 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in C.S. No.44 of 2007 is confirmed. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of March, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:56:03