Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 141
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
RAGHUBIR DASH, J.
Parbati @ Para Dei (dead) after her, her L.Rs. Madanmohan Sahu & Others – Appellants
Versus
Chandramani Barik & Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 354 of 1999
Decided On : 17.06.2014
For Appellants: M/s. P. Kar, A.K. Mohanty, D.K. Swain, J. Behera, M.R. Satpathy, G.D. Kar, S.K. Sahoo & P.K. Behera.
For Respondents: M/s. B.H. Mohanty, S.C. Mohanty, R.K. Nayak, B. Das, D.P. Mohanty & J.K. Bastia.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly addressing and resolving the real dispute between the parties, including the need for a local investigation to determine the possession and use of the disputed plot.
Headnote:
exchange of land - Property Dispute - C.S. Plot Nos. 3523 and 3524, M.S. Plot No. 3793, C.S. Khata No. 29, M.S. Khata No. 138 - The court discussed the exchange of land between the parties, the possession and construction on the disputed plot, and the need for a local investigation to resolve the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest in a land plot and for confirmation of possession. The lower courts dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove her right, title, interest, and possession over the plot, as well as the plea of adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts did not properly consider the evidence and failed to resolve the real dispute between the parties. It concluded that a local investigation by a Survey Knowing person was necessary to determine the possession and use of the disputed plot.
Issues: The issues included the acquisition of title by adverse possession, the alleged exchange of land, the effect of the record of right, and the miscarriage of justice due to the non-consideration of documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower courts did not properly address the plea of exchange and failed to consider vital undisputed facts. It emphasized the need for a local investigation to resolve the real dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with the court's observations.
JUDGMENT
RAGHUBIR DASH, J.
1. This Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1999 and 23.7.1999, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No. 13/27 of 1983/1988 confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1987 and 4.1.1988, respectively, passed by the learned Munsif, Bhadrak in O.S. No. 257 of 1985-I dismissing the suit. The plaintiff in the suit, Parbati @ Para Dei is the original Appellant in this Second Appeal. She filed the suit for declaration that despite of the wrong recording in the M.S.R.O.R. in the names of the defendants and/or their ancestors she has got right, title and interest in the suit land appertaining to M.S. Plot No. 3793 under M.S. Khata No. 138 of Mouza Baralpokhari measuring Ac.0.03 decimals corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 3520 under C.S. Khata No. 29 of the same mouza. Further prayer made by her is for confirmation of her possession and if, found dispossessed during pendency of the suit, for recovery of possession.
The original Respondents 1 to 13 in this Second Appeal are the defendants before the learned trial court arrayed in the same order.
2. Plaintiff’s case, in short, is that one Budhi Barik was the stitiban rayat in respect of R.S. Plot No. 3847 measuring Ac.1.48 decimals out of which he sold Ac.0.08 acre to one Maguni Behera vide registered sale deed No. 171/10.1.1927. Since the C.S. R.O.R. was finally published in the year 1928, soon after the sale transaction, the same could not be reflected in the C.S. R.O.R. But Maguni remained in possession of his purchased land since the date of his purchase. In the C.S. R.O.R. published in 1928, Ac.0.08 decimals of land purchased by Maguni stood recorded under Plot Nos. 3524 (Ac.0.05) and 3523 (Ac.0.04) of C.S. Khata No. 29 in the name of Panu Barik who is the father of Plaintiff’s vendor Budhi Barik. In 1954 Maguni filed T.S. No. 122/1954-I in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak for declaration of his title with respect to the said C.S. Plot Nos. 3523 and 3524 as well as for eviction of some other defendants in that suit from a portion of one of the plots. In that suit some of the present defendants and the ancestors of rest of them were made proforma defendants. The suit was decreed in Maguni’s favour. Some days after the decree was passed in that suit, there was an oral exchange between Maguni, on one hand, and the proforma defendants of that suit, on the other. In terms of the oral exchange Maguni gave his C.S. Plot No. 3523 and got in exchange C.S. Plot No. 3520 measuring Ac.0.03 decimals from the other side. After getting delivery of possession of C.S. Plot No. 3520 (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) Maguni continued to remain in possession thereof by constructing a thatched house thereon, and let it out to others on rent. After Maguni’s death his widow Nandi, the only successor of Maguni, sold Ac.0.02 decimals out of the suit Plot No. 3520, along with C.S. Plot No. 3524 and some other undisputed plots, by executing registered sale deed No. 17195/25.11.1969 in favour of the Plaintiff Parbati @ Para Dei who is none other than the granddaughter (daughter’s daughter) of Maguni and Nandi. The Plaintiff being the only successor in interest of Maguni and Nandi inherited the balance one decimal out of the suit plot and thus, became the owner in possession of the entire suit plot. It is also the Plaintiff’s case that C.S. Plot Nos. 3523 and 3524 correspond to M.S. Plot Nos. 3791 and 3792 and that while M.S. Plot No. 3792 stands recorded in Plaintiff’s name, the other plot stands recorded in the names of the defendants/their predecessors-in-interest which supports the Plaintiff’s stand that Maguni gave his C.S. Plot No. 3523 (corresponding to M.S. Plot No. 3791) in exchange for C.S. Plot No. 3520 (corresponding to M.S. Plot No. 3793). It is also pleaded by the Plaintiff that since the suit land has been in possession of her ancestors since 1955 and after them in her possession to the full knowledge
