Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Ramesh Chandra Behera and another – Appellants
Versus
Arakhita Behera and others – Respondents
SA No.210 of 1994
Decided On : 08-11-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. B.C. Panda, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.C. Panda, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that oral relinquishment of property is not recognized under the Transfer of Property Act, and ownership rights are determined based on valid documentation and possession.
Headnote:
relinquishment - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Section 123] - The court discussed the issue of oral relinquishment and its requirement for registration under the Transfer of Property Act. The court emphasized that there is no provision for oral relinquishment in the Act and held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property based on the registered sale deed and the lack of evidence to substantiate oral relinquishment.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed possession of ancestral property, alleging that their father mortgaged the property, which was subsequently sold to the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed ownership based on oral relinquishment and erroneous R.O.R. entry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property, as they purchased it through a registered sale deed and were in possession. The defendants' claim of oral relinquishment was not substantiated.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the ancestral property, the validity of oral relinquishment, and the significance of R.O.R. entry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence for oral relinquishment, the validity of the registered sale deed, and the plaintiffs' continuous possession of the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K.Rath, J.
1. Defendants are appellants against an affirming judgment.
2. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties.
Genealogy Budhia Behera
Gouranga Balaji (died unmarried)
Balaji @ Bala
Haribandhu
Jagabandhu
Ganapati
Bauri
Raghunath
Ramesh (D-1)
Gobinda (D-2)
Arakhita (P-1)
Dasarathi (P-2)
Madan (P-3)
Baidyanath (P-4)
Panchu (P-5)
The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property described in Schedule-‘A’ and ‘B’ is their ancestral property. The same was recorded in the name of their grandfather, Balaji Behera. On 21.04.1953, Raghunath Behera, father of the plaintiffs, mortgaged the suit lands by conditional sale in favour of Udhab Roul. Since the mortgage was not redeemed within the stipulated period, the properties were sold to Udhab Roul. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1961 for a consideration of Rs.200/-, vide Ext.3. They are in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that since their father shifted to Bhadrak, they went to Bhadrak to eke out their livelihood. Since they were not staying in the village, they entrusted the suit property to Ganapati Behera, uncle of defendant no.1, to look after the suit land as well as house. Ganapati Behera used to pay rajbhag to them. After his death, the same was entrusted to defendant no.1. He was looking after the properties on behalf of the plaintiffs. In January 1988, when the plaintiffs came to the village to collect rajbhag, defendant no.1 denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed title over the suit property. With this factual scenario, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties.
3. Defendants entered contest and filed their written statement. The case of the defendant no.1 was that Budhia Behera was the common ancestor. He had four sons, namely, Gouranga, Balaji, Jagabandhu and Hadibandhu. Plaintiffs belong to the branch of Balaji. Defendant no.1 belongs to the branch of Jagabandhu. Gouranga, the eldest son died unmarried. Thereafter Balaji being the eldest male member became the karta of the joint family. Balaji, grandfather of the plaintiffs, was the karta of the joint family. The R.O.R. was published in his name. Taking advantage of the erroneous entry, the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged the suit property. The other family members were not aware of the same. The plaintiffs and their father had shifted to Bhadrak for eking out livelihood. Similarly, Hadibandhu, uncle of defendant no.1 had left the village for Aska. Balaji and Hadibandhu had relinquished their share in favour of the defendants. Mere entry of the name of Balaji in the R.O.R. has of no significance.
4. On the, inter se, pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck eight issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court held that the father of the plaintiffs had not relinquished his right over the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had failed to prove to be the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs had purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1961 vide Ext.3 and had been paying rent. They are in possession of the suit property. Held so, it decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree, the defendants filed T.A. No. 13 of 1992 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chatrapur, which was eventually dismissed.
5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
“(1) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in holding that in the absence of deed of relinquishment the plaintiffs’ suit with regard to the disputed property should have been decreed ?
(2) Whether the courts below committed an error in
