The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 404 of 2023 From the judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No.37/76 of 2004-2022 confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2004 and 24.06.2004 respectively passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Khandapara in T.S. No.34 of 1998. Jyotirmayee Panda & others ...… Appellants --------------- -Versus- Nisa Panda & others ..…. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Appellants For Respondents : M/s.J.R. Kar & S.K.Swain, Advocates : M/s. A.P.Bose, D.J. Sahu & S.Swain, Advocates _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 13.05.2025
Legal Reasoning
This is an appeal by the defendants against a confirming judgment. The suit of the plaintiffs having Page 1 of 8 been decreed by the trial court and confirmed in First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land. It is their case that the suit plot originally belonged to Jagannath Jew Bije, Khandapara, which is a piece of land with mango trees. One Harihar Singh Mardaraj, being the hereditary trustee of the deity, had been managing its affairs including the landed properties. One Lokanath Das, Advocate of Khandapara was the authorized Agent of Ex-ruler, Harihar Singh Mardaraj. He was also looking after the affairs of the deity on behalf of Harihar Singh Mardaraj and in such capacity and consent of Harihar Singh Mardaraj, he executed an Estamorari patta in favour of the plaintiffs and their elder brother, Krupasindhu Panda in the year 1957, which was registered and salami of Rs.175/- was fixed. The salami having been paid, the plaintiffs and their elder brother were put in possession over Ac.1.00 dec. of land. Since Page 2 of 8 then, the plaintiffs are in possession of the land, which is described under ‘A’ Schedule of the plaint. It is further claimed that the defendants, having no manner of right, title, interest and possession over any portion of the land covered under Sabik Plot No.2100, gave out that the schedule land has been recorded in their name and invited an Amin to get the suit land identified whereupon they attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs. They also came over the suit land and made attempt to cut down the mango trees standing thereon but were restrained by the plaintiffs and village gentries. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, inter alia, taking the plea that the Sabik Khata No.17 had been declared as trust estate in Misc. Case No.114/65 and Debottar Niskar status had been vested with the government vide order dated 18.03.1974 whereupon, the state of Odisha was the Marfatdar. As such, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the suit land is not properly identified and that their grandfather planted Page 3 of 8 mango trees over the suit plots and Harihar Singh Mardaraj granted sthitiban patta to them in respect of Sabik Plot Nos.2100 & 2650 in the year 1952 and also received Salami towards the same. Since then, the defendants are in possession and the settlement authorities have, therefore, rightly recorded the R.O.R. in their names. Alternatively, they claim to have prescribed title by way of adverse possession against the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest and defendant no.1 had no authority to execute the Estamorari patta in question. 4. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for determination :- “I. Is the suit legally maintainable ? II. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit ? III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation ? IV. Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties ? V. Have the plaintiffs any manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property ? Page 4 of 8 VI. Have the defendants any manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property ? VII. Is the Hal Settlement entry correct ? VIII. Have the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed ? IX. to what other relief ?” 5. Issue No.V, being the pivotal issue, was taken up for consideration at the outset. The trial court considered the rival contentions and analysed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. It found that as per Ext.1 executed in the year 1957, a prima facie basis was formed for the plaintiffs’ case. On the contrary, the defendants, despite objecting to admission of Ext.1, did not come forward to substantiate their contentions. In other words, they adduced no evidence to suggest that the patta executed by Lokanath Das on behalf of Harihar Singh Mardaraj is void. That apart, they also could not prove their contentions that their grandfather had planted mango trees and Harihar Singh Mardaraj had given sthitiban status by rayati patta receiving Salami and put them in possession. The trial Page 5 of 8 court also found that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 & 2 fully corroborated the plaint averments supported by the other witnesses. As such, the Issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Basically, on such findings, Issue No.VI was also answered in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was thus decreed by declaring that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the schedule land. 6. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Court, after taking note of the rival contentions and re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, found no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appeal was thus dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendants are in appeal before this Court. 8. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the defendant- appellants first submitted that the land covered under the Estamorari Patta is not the same as the one described under Schedule-A. Both the courts below ought to have Page 6 of 8 therefore non-suited the plaintiffs for improper
Legal Reasoning
identification of the suit land. Mr. Kar further submitted that the case of the defendants is fortified by the fact that in the Yaddast, by the parties had put their signatures in token of their consent for recording of the suit land in favour of the grandfather of the defendants. 9. Firstly, this Court finds that though a plea was taken regarding non-identification of the suit land, yet such plea appears to have been taken just for the sake of it without specifying as to how the suit land as described in the plaint is unable to be identified. Moreover, it was not seriously raised as an issue before the court below, for which no issue was framed. Such a ground also does not appear to have been taken before the First Appellate Court. Even otherwise, nothing has been demonstrated before this Court as to how or on what basis, the description of the suit land as per the plaint would lead to passing of a non-executable decree. As regards the so- called recording in the Yaddast, this Court finds that the said document was never produced before the court below Page 7 of 8 or admitted into evidence by the defendants. Under such circumstances and particularly, on the face of concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below, this Court finds no reason to entertain such plea at this belated stage. 10. Thus, this is a case where pure questions of fact are sought to be agitated in the form of second appeal. It is settled law that concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with by the Second Appellate Court, unless such findings are perverse, against the weight of evidence on record or such as no prudent person would arrive at. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court as to how the findings of fact rendered by both the courts below are bad in law for the aforementioned reason. This Court, therefore, finds no substantial question of law involved in the appeal for its admission. 11. 12. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K Designation: AR-CUM-SENIOR SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-May-2025 14:47:24 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 13th May, 2025/ Manoj ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 8 of 8