Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Anirudha Pradhan and another - Appellants
Versus
Nilambar Giri - Respondent
S.A.No.151 of 1990
Decided On : 01-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
The central legal point established is the affirmation of the plaintiff's title over the suit land and possession, based on the evidence and findings of fact.
Headnote:
Title - Property Dispute - Court affirmed lower court's decision that the vendors of the plaintiff had title over the suit land and that the plaintiff is in possession of the land.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of right, title, interest, and confirmation of possession of the suit land, alleging disturbance in possession by the defendants. Defendants denied plaintiff's assertions and claimed possession and payment of rent to Revenue Authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the vendors of the plaintiff had title to sell the suit land, sold it to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed, and the plaintiff is in possession of the land. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issues: The substantial questions of law were whether the plaintiff had title by virtue of the sale deed and whether the lower appellate court's conclusion on this was vitiated by errors of record.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts below found that the vendors of the plaintiff had title over the suit land, and the plaintiff was in possession, based on the evidence and findings of fact.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K. RATH, J.
1. This is a defendant’s appeal against affirming judgment.
2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted suit in the court of the learned Munsif, Champua for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession, if he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit land from Ganeswar Giri and Bharat Giri sons of Baishnab Giri by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.6.51 for a consideration of Rs.170/-, Ext.1. Thereafter possession was delivered to him. After sale, he filed Mutation Case No.371 of 1951-52, which was allowed on 28.11.52. He used to pay rent. The defendants, who have no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land, created disturbance in his possession. He ascertained that the suit schedule land has been wrongly recorded in their names in the remarks column of the R.O.R.
3. The defendants entered contest and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that khata No.8 of village-Rajia was recorded in the name of Karuna Giri, maternal uncle of the defendants in the year 1914. The entire land was mutated in the name of Labanya Bewa, maternal grandmother of the defendants in Mutation Case No.118 of 1920-21 as her only son pre-deceased her leaving no heir. Out of A.22.50 dec. of lands, A.7.74 dec. of lands were given to her three daughters, namely, Gura Bewa, Chanchala Bewa and Dalimba Bewa. The land was mutated in their names in Mutation Case No.39 of 1929-30. Dalimba Bewa died leaving two sons, defendant no.1 and Rushinath Pradhan and a daughter Damayanti. Gura Bewa died leaving defendant no.2. After death of their mothers, the defendants are in possession of the suit land and paying rent to the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff has no right, title or possession over the suit land.
4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues. Parties led evidence. The learned trial court came to hold that the vendors of the plaintiff, namely, Ganeswar Giri and Bharat Giri had title to sale the suit land. He sold the land to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. In mutation proceeding, the land was mutated in his name. Plaintiff is in possession of the land. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendants appealed before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A.No.24 of 1986, which was eventually dismissed.
5. The appeal was admitted on 26.9.1990 on the following substantial questions of law:
“(1) The plaintiff having failed to establish the title of his vendor does any title flow to the plaintiff by virtue of Ext.1.
(2) Whether the conclusion of the lower appellate court on this score is vitiated by errors of record?”
6. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submits that the vendors of the plaintiff had no title over the suit land. They sold the land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.6.51, vide Ext.1. Thus, no title flows to the plaintiff by virtue of Ext.1. The courts below committed a manifest illegality or impropriety in holding that the vendors of the plaintiff had title over the suit land. The judgments of the courts below are vitiated for non-consideration of the evidence on record.
8. On a threadbare analysis of the pleadings and evidence, both the courts below held that the vendors of the plaintiff had title over the suit land. They alienated the land to the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed dated 29.6.51, vide Ext.1. Thereafter the plaintiff filed Mutation Case No. 371 of 1951-52 to mutate the land in his favour. The same was allowed. The R.O.R. has been published in the name of the plaintiff. These are essentially finding of facts. There is no perversity in the same. The subs
