Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Muralidhara Nayak and others - Appellants
Versus
Madhei Prusty and others - Respondents
R.S.A. No.376 of 2006
Decided On : 07-10-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. G.R. Samantaray, Mr. S.P. Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mrs. S. Mohanty, Mr. R.K. Mohanty.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, emphasizing continuity, publicity, extent of possession adverse to the competitor, hostile possession, denial of the true owner's rights, and clear evidence of hostile animus.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - R.S. Plot No.8/897, R.S. Plot No.18/998 - AIR 1934 Privy Council 23, AIR 1957 SC 314, AIR 2007 SC 1753, (2004) 1 SCC 271, (2006) 7 SCC 570 - The court discussed the classical requirement of adverse possession, emphasizing the need for continuity, publicity, and extent of possession adverse to the competitor. It also highlighted that adverse possession cannot commence until actual possession is obtained with the required animus. The court emphasized that long and continuous possession alone does not constitute adverse possession and that hostile possession, denial of the true owner's rights, and clear evidence of hostile animus are crucial factors in establishing adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming that the suit lands were settled in their father's favor by the Government. The defendants disputed the settlement and claimed adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in part, confirming the plaintiffs' right, title, and interest over certain plots and restraining the defendants from entering those plots. The appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, and the High Court dismissed the defendants' second appeal.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, correspondence of suit lands to specific plots, right, title, and interest of the plaintiffs, adverse possession by the defendants, and relief entitled to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the classical requirement of adverse possession, the need for continuity, publicity, and extent of possession adverse to the competitor. It highlighted that long and continuous possession alone does not constitute adverse possession and that hostile possession, denial of the true owner's rights, and clear evidence of hostile animus are crucial factors in establishing adverse possession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the defendants' second appeal, upholding the lower appellate court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
The defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.
2. Nakula Prusty, predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 6 and respondent no.7 as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.1 of 1991 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakhyanagar for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Government have settled sabik plot nos.8/897 and 8/899, khata no.2 of Touzi No.1 measuring area Ac.5.66 dec. of mouza-Bhairpur in favour of their father Purna Chandra Prusty. He was in possession of the same and paid rent to the State. The State Government also settled an area Ac.1.30 dec. appertaining to Plot no.18/998, khata no.2 of mouza-Bhairpur in favour of their father. During the current settlement operation, some portions of lands of sabik plot no.8/897 were recorded as plot nos.695, 740 and 816 under Hal Khata No.146 of mouza-Bhairpur. Similarly some portions of lands of sabik plot no.18/898 were recorded as Hal plot nos.826 and 951 under Khata No.146 of mouza-Bhairpur. Though the suit lands were recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the finally published ROR, the name of the defendants had been reflected in the remarks column. The recording of the note of possession of the defendants in the remarks column of the suit plots is wrong and without any foundation. Being emboldened with the wrong entry, the defendants had tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit lands. Be it noted that during pendency of the appeal in the courts below, the plaintiff no.1 died; whereafter his legal heirs, present respondent nos.1 to 6, were substituted.
3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the suit is barred by law of limitation. While not disputing the settlement of the suit lands in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, they denied the correctness of the hal suit plots to the sabik plots. The specific case of the defendants is that Juanganali chaka of mouza-Bhairpur Raita was previously a jungle land and out of that the father of the defendants reclaimed sabik plot no.18/1033 area Ac.0.70 decimals, sabik plot no.18/1024 area Ac.0.94 decimals, sabik plot no.8/1079 area Ac.1.10 decimals prior to 1950. The defendant no.1 got sabik plot no.18/1048 area Ac.0.20 decimals and sabik plot no.18/1049 by lease at about the same period. Later the father of the defendants purchased Ac.0.81 decimals and 2½ kadis of lands from the western side of sabik plot no.8/897 from Nakula Prusty, plaintiff no.1, by registered sale deed on 23.11.54. Thereafter the land was mutated in the name of the father of the defendants and was assigned plot no.8/897/1125. It is further stated that the father of the defendants cleared the jungle in the year 1950 and changed the kisam of the land in the year 1960. Since then the father of the defendants and thereafter the defendants are in possession of the suit lands along with other surrounding lands of Juanganali chaka. The plaintiffs have never possessed the suit lands since the year 1950. The suit lands lost their identity at the spot being merged with the lands of the defendants. In the alternative it is pleaded that the defendants have acquired their title over the same by adverse possession.
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. They are:-
“(1) Is the suit maintainable according to law and facts on record ?
(2) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action as alleged in the plaint ?
(3) Are the suit lands as described in schedule of the plaint correspond to R.S. Plot No.8/897 and R.S. Plot No.18/998 ?
(4) Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest over the suit lands ?
(5) Have the defendants acquired title over the suit lands by way of adverse possession ?
(6) To what other relief or reliefs the plai
