The High Court
Case Details
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.344 of 2022 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment dated 29th October, 2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri, in R.F.A. No.88/89 of 2010/2000 confirming the judgment & decree dated 24th July, 2000 & 7th August, 2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Puri in T.S. No.306 of 1985. Rama Chandra Panda …. Appellant ---- -versus- Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board, represented by its Executive Officer, At-Dandimal Sahi, Puri & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - M/s.A.P. Bose, D.J. Sahoo, A. Pattnaik, S. Swain and D.K. Sethy For Respondents -
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 02.04.2024 : Date of Judgment: 15.04.2024 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 dated 29th October, 2022 passed by the RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 1 of 9 learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri, in R.F.A. No.88/89 of 2010/2000. The Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff, had filed the suit, i.e., Title Suit No.306 of 1985 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Puri for eviction of the Appellant and the predecessor- in-interest of Respondent Nos.2 to 7, namely, Jagannath Panda and delivery of vacant possession. The suit, having been decreed, this Appellant, being under the sufferance of the same, as the aggrieved Defendant No.2 therein, had carried the 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 lost in the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 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:- The Plaintiff-Shree Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trustee Board is an Endowment Trust Board, having and Managing some landed properties within the Puri township. The suit land measuring Ac.0.09 decimals under Sabik Khata No.71 and Plot No.1085 belonged to the Plaintiff. In the Sabik Settlement, the suit land with other lands had been recorded in the name of the RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 Plaintiff, who was in possession of the same being its right, title and interest holder and paying the rent. The suit land was lying low with full of bushes. Taking advantage of the fact that the suit land was lying open, on 30.06.1985, the Defendants illegally constructed one shop house with thatched roof without permission of the Plaintiff. When the employees of the Plaintiff came to know about the said illegal construction, they protested. The Defendants, however, without paying any heed to their request and protest, hurriedly completed the construction. 4. The Defendant No.1, having filed the written statement remained absent and was set ex parte. He too has after the disposal of the suit has not taken up any further action to challenge the said order of dismissal of the suit. 5. The Defendant No.2, in his written statement, pleaded that the suit land was at a lower level covered by bushes. In order to maintain his livelihood in the year 1970, he constructed a thatched house after leveling the land and cleaning the bushes over there. Although the employees of the Plaintiff had protested to the construction of the house, the Defendant No.2 had advanced his claim of ownership over the said property. The Defendant No.2 claims to be in open, peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land without any interruption from any quarter as its owner exhibiting hostile animus and denying the Page 3 of 9 RSA No.344 of 2022 right, title and interest of the Plaintiff. In course of time, the Defenant No.2 has started to run a hotel in the year 1989 and he has gone for renovation and controverted it to an asbestos roofed house. It be stated at this stage that the Defendant No.1 is the father of the Defendant No.2. 6. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed eight issues. Upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary let by the parties, the Trial Court has answered the crucial issue, which is issue no.5 which concerns with the Plaintiff’s claim of right, title and interest over the suit land and as such, his right to possess against the Plaintiff. This has proved the way for passing the decree in the suit as prayed for. The First Appellate Court, being moved by the aggrieved Defendant No.2 addressing all the contentions raised therein, has ultimately concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 7. Mr.A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant No.2) submitted that the Courts below ought to have held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the Defendant has pleaded that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the property and as such, having no authority to evict the Defendant. According to Page 4 of 9 RSA No.344 of 2022 him, Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri in whose name the record of right of the suit land stands being not joined as the Plaintiff nor being so made a party, the suit for eviction of the Defendants at the instance, i.e., Shree Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trustee Board ought to have been held to be not maintainable. He next submitted that the Defendant No.1 being in constructive possession of the suit land in an open and peaceful manner without any obstruction from any quarter, uninterruptedly for all these period upward of thirty years exhibiting hostile animus claiming title unto himself and denying title of the true owner to their knowledge, the suit ought to have been dismissed holding that the title of the true owner over the suit land has been extinguished as the Plaintiff has acquired the same by adverse possession. He, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial question of law. 8. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 9. The Plaintiff here is Shree Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board represented through its Executive Officer. Said Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board is not the recorded owner of the suit land. However, the record of right (Ext.2) shows Page 5 of 9 RSA No.344 of 2022 that said Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board is in possession of the property. Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board is a public deity and is governed under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951. The Plaintiff has proved the document showing his possession of the suit land prior to the encroachment by the Defendants or their entry over the suit land. The payment of rent for the suit land by the Plaintiff has been established. It is not there in the evidence that the Plaintiff is having any interest adverse to the interest of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfat Managing Committee, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri, the recorded owner. The properties standing recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu have been in possession of different Mathas, Temples and Religious Institutions. Such possession of the properties of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu are, however, stand for the benefit and welfare of those Mathas, Temples and Religious Institutions, which, in turn provide varieties types of services including some such special to the Trinity and in the Temple. Judicial notice can be well taken that the Culture of Lord Jagannath which is said as Jagannath Culture’ gets spreaded all over the globe through these Religious Institution/Mathas which have been founded for the said purpose and in order to achieve that goal. RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 6 of 9 It further reveals that Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri was added as a party at the stage of the First Appeal and having participated in the said proceeding, they have raised no such objection as to the institution of the suit by the Plaintiff Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board claiming the reliefs therein against the Defendants in respect of the subject matter of the suit. In the above premises, the suit at the instance of the Jagannath Ballav Endowment Trust Board for eviction of the Defendants from the said property is in no way detriment to the interest of Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri and it is thus found that the decree in the suit would also enure to the benefit of Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri. Since the very possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff for and on behalf of Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri; the suit has to be taken to be for the ultimate benefit of Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu, the recorded owner, who being given the opportunity instead of advancing any objection to the move of the Plaintiff rather supports the action taken. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant No.2) that the suit for the reliefs claimed at the instance of the Plaintiff is not maintainable cannot be countenanced with. Coming to the of case/claim of the Defendant No.2 as to have acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 7 of 9 by adverse possession, it is the case of the Defendant No.2 that from the year 1970, he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the Plaintiff as well as general public. However, it is stated by Defendant No.2 that his father, who is the Defendant No.1 being the Sevayat of Daria Mahavir and Chakranarayan Dev has been in possession of the suit land, having a thatched house thereon and doing business and in course of time, this Defendant No.2 has opened a hotel over the suit land, which underwent renovation in due course of time. Surprisingly, said Jagannath (Defendant No.1) has not been examined. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, having discussed the evidence in great detail have found that the Defendant No.2 has failed to establish his case/claim over the suit property as to have acquired the right, title and interest over the same by virtue of adverse possession especially exhibiting hostile animus. In fact there is no such pleading nor evidence from the side of the Defendant No.2 that he, while making the entry over the suit land knew as to who was the real owner and by denying that ownership to the knowledge of that owner, he started to possess and continued as such all through. In course of hearing, no such material has been pointed out that such finding of the Courts below suffers from the vice of perversity and this Court, on going through the discussion of RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 8 of 9 evidence made by both the Courts, finds no such element of perversity to have permeated therein giving rise to an erroneous conclusion. 10. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant under both the limbs fail and this Court, therefore, finds that there surfaces no such substantial question of law for being answered in this Appeal meriting its admission. 11. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 11:28:59 RSA No.344 of 2022 Page 9 of 9