Civil Suit No. 126 of 2008 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. NO.314 OF 2019 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019 and 13.09.2019 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karanjia in R.F.A. No.01 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 and 05.01.2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Karanjia in Civil Suit No.126 of 2008 (148 of 2011). ---- Arjun Mohanta …. Appellant -versus- Mairam Bibi & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): ============================================== For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate. For Respondents - ------------- CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 30.11.2023 :: Date of Judgment:04.12.2023 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 06.09.2019 and 13.09.2019 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karanjia in R.F.A. No.01 of 2013. RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 1 of 7 {{ 2 }} The present Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit No.126 of 2008-148 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karajia arraigning the Respondents as the Defendants with the prayer for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land. The suit having been dismissed, this Appellant being the unsuccessful Plaintiff, had carried the Appeal under section-96 of the Code which has also been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful Plaintiff before 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 Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally belongs to one Sk.Abdul with Hal Dakhal of Sk. Nuru Mahammad as per Sabik settlement. Sk. Nuru Mahammad in order to meet his legal necessity had sold away the suit schedule land to Sk. Aibo and Sk. Mujunu on 23.02.1966 for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. Sk. Nuru Mahammad had given the delivery of possession of the suit land to Sk. Aibo and Sk. Mujunu. Sk. Mujunu for his legal necessity sold away the suit land to Defendant No.3 in the year 1992 for consideration of RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 2 of 7 {{ 3 }} Rs.4,900/- by executing registered sale-deed. The Defendant No.3 having purchased the suit land peacefully possessed the same till the year 2008. While thus in possession of suit, the Defendant No.3 in order to meet legal necessity to sold away the same to the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.23,550/- by registered sale-deed dated 22.04.2008. He also gave delivery of possession of the said land to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land. After purchase of the land by the Plaintiff, he applied for mutation of the said land in his name which was however rejected as the purchase of the suit land was as per the record of the Sabik settlement. The Plaintiff then on inquiry came to know that the suit land in the Hal settlement record of right has been recorded in the name of Sk.Usman and Mairam Bibi. It is stated that Sk. Usman and Mairam Bibi in connivance with the Settlement Authorities have inserted their names in the Hal record of right in respect of the suit land in order to grab the same. The Plaintiff claims that neither Sk. Usman nor Mairam Bibi had any point of time possessed the suit land. Simply because, Sk. Usman is son of Sk. Nuru Mahammad, the Settlement Authorities have recorded the said land in the record of right in his name. After receiving the notice in the mutation case, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 started creating disturbance in the possession RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 3 of 7 {{ 4 }} of the suit by the Plaintiff. He, therefore, was compelled to file the suit. 4. The Defendants in the written statement stated that prior to execution of the registered sale-deed by Sk. Nuru Mahammad, he had executed a deed of gift on 30.01.1959 in favour of Sk. Usman and Mairam Bibi in respect of the suit land and had given delivery of possession of the suit land to them. It is stated that since that day Sk. Usman and Mairam Bibi had remained in possession of the suit land peacefully without any disturbance from any quarter by paying land revenue to the State. The Defendants claim that as because they were in possession of the same, during Hal settlement operation, the land has been rightly recorded in their name in the record of right, so published. 5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings having framed six issues, upon examination of evidence and their evaluation has found the claim of the Defendants to have got the suit land by way of gift has not been proved but then coming to the case/ claim of the Plaintiff, it has also been held that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit land by virtue of the registered sale-deed. Further examination of evidence being made with regard to the possession of the suit land, the Trial Courts finding is that the RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 4 of 7 {{ 5 }} Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his possession over the suit land. Having said all these, the suit stood dismissed. The First Appellate Court being moved by the unsuccessful Plaintiff has affirmed all those findings returned by the Trial Court and the result of dismissal of the suit has also been confirmed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Courts below having not kept in view the land schedule given in the plaint which discloses the particulars as to the Khata number, Plot number, name of the recorded tenants in the Hal settlement, the name of the Village Area and Kisam with reference to the boundary and that having been proved from the side of the Plaintiff, the Courts below are not correct in holding that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he having purchased the suit land in the year 2008 is the title holder in possession of the same. He submitted that when the case projected by the Defendants has been disbelieved, the Courts below ought not to have dismissed the suit, as the nexus between the land described in the schedule of the plaint and the description of the land in the successive sale-deeds have been established. He, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law. RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 5 of 7 {{ 6 }} 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint and written statement filed by the parties as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by them. 8. The registered sale-deed dated 05.11.1992 admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 was executed in favour of the Defendant No.3 corresponding to the land under Hal Khata No.88 and Hal Plot No.151. The Registered sale-deed i.e. Ext.2 dated 22.04.2008 is in respect of the land under Hal Khata No.88, Plot No.151. So, when these sale-deeds were executed, the suit land stood recorded in the name of Hafijan Bibi, Sk. Usman, Sk. Hussain and Sk. Jamurati, Ext.5 shows that the area under Khata No.88, Plot No.151 was mutated and recorded under Khata No.94/28 which stood recorded in the name of Sk. Usman and Mairam Bibi. The first registered sale-deed of the year 1966, reveals that on 19.02.1966, Sk. Nuru Mahammad sold land under sabik Khata No.3, plot no.87 and 95 comprising of large area in favour of Sk. Aibo and Sk. Mujunu. Ext.6 shows that plot no.95 comprises of an area of Ac.0.84 decimals and Plot No.76 to the extent of Ac.0.10 decimals which specifically entails that a portion of land out of Plot No.95 and 97 were sold before hand. Plot index, Ext.3 makes it clear that Plot RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 6 of 7 {{ 7 }} No.95 under Sabik Khata No.3 was converted to Khata No.88, Plot No.151. Thus, there arises serious ambiguity with regard to the specification of the land i.e. sold in the year 1966 which is further confounded as the Plaintiff in his evidence has been able to specifically state his purchased land as the land described in the plaint and the registered sale deed standing in his favour. In the above state of affairs, the Courts below having found the Plaintiff to have failed to establish the nexus between the land which was originally purchased in the year 1966 and the land as specified in the Hal record of right, the suit has been rightly dismissed. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant fails. Thus, it is found that there arises no substantial question of law for being answered, meriting admission of the Appeal. 10. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Dec-2023 15:08:35 Narayan RSA No.314 of 2019 Page 7 of 7