Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Srimati Chitralekha Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
Chandramani Bewa & others - Respondent
SA No.225 of 1987
Decided on : 09-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Ms. Lopamudra Pradhan, Adv.
Adverse possession is a blended question of fact and law, requiring the claimant to prove peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession over a statutory period.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 - Sec. 7(iv)
Fact of the Case:
The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction regarding a disputed land in Puri town. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered sale deed, while the defendants asserted adverse possession and ownership through a compromise and eviction proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not acquired title based on the sale deed and that the defendants had perfected title through adverse possession. The appellate court upheld the decision. However, the second appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the validity of adverse possession claims, the reliance on a compromise not involving the plaintiff or her vendor, and the possession status of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adverse possession is a blended question of fact and law, requiring the claimant to prove peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession over a statutory period. The court found that the defendants failed to establish the classical requirements of adverse possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.
2. The land appertaining to Khata No.144/80, Plot No.325, Ac.0.38 dec. and Plot No.326, Ac.0.170 dec. in Puri town is the subject-matter of dispute. Plot No.325 situates adjacent north of plot no.326. The land originally belonged to two brothers Arnada Charan Rai and Durga Charan Rai. The case of the plaintiff is that in an amicable partition, Durga got Ac.0.40 dec. of land from western side of plot no.326 and Ac.0.40 of land from western side of plot no.325. Arnada got Ac.0.66 of land from eastern side of plot no.326 and Ac.0.40 of land from eastern side of plot no.325. Durga sold his entire share to Ramesh Chandra Das. He has constructed a residential building and is staying therein. Arnada sold his share to Saudamini Mitra by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1955 vide Ext.7. Thereafter, Saudamini sold western half to defendant no.3. She was in possession of the eastern half. Thereafter, defendant no.3 sold western half to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.8.1977 vide Ext.3. When defendants 1 and 2 threatened to dispossess her, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. Defendants 1 and 2 entered contest and filed a written statement stating that in the partition between Durga and Arnada, the later got his share from the eastern half of plot Nos.325 and 326. He was in possession of the same. Ext.7 is a sham transaction. The same had not been acted upon. After death of Arnada, his share devolved on his widow Kumudini. She was in possession of the land. Kumudini had executed a will in favour of Dayanidhi, son of Defendant no.1. Letters of administration was granted in favour of Dayanidhi on 17.4.1969. Defendant no.4 had instituted a suit against Dayanidhi, which was subsequently substituted by defendant nos.1 and 2. The same was dismissed in terms of compromise by which defendants 1 and 2 were recognized as the owners of the eastern half of plot no.325 and 326, which constituted the share of Arnada. The defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
4. Defendant no.3, vendor of the plaintiff, supports the case of the plaintiff. Since defendant no.4 died prior to institution of the suit, her name was deleted.
5. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court struck nine issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary to substantiate their case. Learned trial court came to a conclusion that Ext.7 is a sham transaction and has not been acted upon. The plaintiff has not acquired right, title and interest on the basis of Ext.3. The defendants have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff appealed before the learned District Judge, Puri, which was transferred to the court of the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Puri, Ganjam and renumbered as T.A No.1/89 of 1987/1981. The same was eventually dismissed.
6. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.2 A, C, D and E of the appeal memo. The same are -
“A. Whether the findings of both the courts below that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have perfected their title by way of adverse possession can be sustained in absence of any definite pleading on the part of the defendant nos.1 and 2 as to when and how their possession became adverse to the original owner.
C. Whether the courts below have acted against law by relying upon Ext.G, an alleged compromise entered into by one Gajendranath Mitra on behalf of deceased defendant no.4 with defendant nos.1 and 2. When neither the plaintiff nor the vendor/s of the plaintiff defendant no.3 were parties to the suit or compromise after the property was sold under Ext.1 and 7.
D. Whether the learned courts below committed serious error of record by coming to the conclusion that the defendant no.1 and 2 were in possess
