Back
High Court Of Orissa
L. MOHAPATRA, J.
BIVAS CHANDRA SAMANTA - Appellant
Versus
HIRA ALIAS MADAN MOHAN BISWAL - Respondent
S. A. 204 Of 2000
Decided On : 09/16/2005
Specific Relief Act - Sale Deed - Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows the court to make a declaration of title without the plaintiff asking for further relief. The court also considered the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the duty of the court not to proceed with an application made beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that a sale deed executed by Defendant No. 2 in favor of Defendant No. 1 was invalid and not binding, and for a further declaration that the plaintiff and co-sharers have right, title, and interest over the suit property. The defendant contested the suit, claiming legal transfer of the land and challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and other formal grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the defendant failed to establish the conscious execution of the sale deed by Defendant No. 2 and the legal necessity for the transfer of the suit land. The trial court also found in favor of the plaintiff regarding the possession of the suit land. The lower appellate court confirmed these findings and dismissed the appeal, leading to the present Second Appeal.
Issues: The substantial questions of law admitted by the Court were related to the decreeing of the suit for recovery of possession in absence of a prayer for recovery of possession, and the applicability of the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the duty of the court not to proceed with an application made beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The court also emphasized that the relief for recovery of possession can be granted even in the absence of a specific prayer if the plaintiff has sought further relief than a mere declaration of title.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to substantiate the grounds on which the appeal had been admitted.
( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant before this Court against a confirming judgment.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 28-7-1987 executed by the Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Defendant No. 1 (appellant)in respect of an area measuring 63 decimals pertaining to Plot No. 408 under Khata No. 20 of Mouza Raghunathpur is invalid and not binding and for further declaration that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 along with their co-sharers have right, title and interest over the suit property and for permanent injunction.
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is that defendant No. 2 is his mother and defendants 3 to 39 are the co-sharers. Defendant No. 1 appellant is a permanent resident of Jeypore in the district of Koraput and was working in a Tusser Society at harichandanpur, which is adjacent to village of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 39. The plaintiff was working as a peon in the said Society. Defendant No. 1 was staying in the house of the plaintiff as a paying guest. Defendant No. 1 was transferred to bhubaneswar and again he was transferred to Koraput. Even after transfer, defendant no. 1 continued to have relationship with the family of the plaintiff and stopped coming to the house of the plaintiff from February, 1993. While defendant No. 1 was transferred from Harichandanpur, he engaged the bother-in-law of the plaintiff to watch the house and some time in the month of April, 1993 defendant No. 1 threatened the other tenants to vacate the house claiming ownership over the same on the strength of a sale-deed. On inquiry, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendant No. 1 had obtained sale deed from defendant No. 2. On further inquiry, it was ascertained that defendant no. 2 accompanied defendant No. 1 to keonjhar for her medical treatment about five to six years back. Defendant No. 1 had taken her to Court on the pretext of receiving a sale-deed executed by one Jadumani in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1987 from the Sub-Registrar's Office. Having came to know that the defendant No. 1 fraudulently got the sale deed executed from defendant No. 2, the plaintiff obtained a certified copy thereof and filed the suit for relief claimed. Defendant No. 1, who is the appellant before this Court contested the suit by filing a written statement and challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation as well as other formal grounds. Apart from denying the allegation made in the plaint, his specific case is that in the year 1993, he was working as Production officer in the Department of Textile and handloom and was posted in the district of koraput. There was a negotiation for transfer of the suit land in presence of the plaintiff and consideration money of Rs. 4000/-was paid to defendant No. 2 in presence of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law P. K. Parida and one Raj Kishore Sahu of singhbilla. After payment of the consideration money, he took possession of the suit land and constructed a house thereon in the year 1989. The construction was completed in the year 1992 and on 24-3-1993 he performed the ceremony of Gruhaparbesh. The tile-roof building constructed by the defendant No. 1 for storing the building materials was allowed to be kept by the plaintiff and when request was made to vacate the same, the suit has been filed. According to the defendant No. 1 appellant, the defendant No. 2 respondent being the Karta of the family, had executed the sale deed for legal necessity within the knowledge of the plaintiff and his sister after receipt of the consideration money and understanding the effect of sale.
( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed six issues. Issue No. 4 relates to validity of the sale deed dated 28-7-1987 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1. On assessment of evidence adduced before the Court, the trial Court held that the defendant No. 1 failed to establish that the d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
