Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A.S. Naidu, J.
ABALA MOHAPATRA - APPELLANT
Versus
KRUSHNA CH. TRIPATHY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 318 of 1997
Decided On : 18-12-2008
P. Kar and Associates, for the Appellant; B. Bhuyan and Associates, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to examine the validity of a decision of the OEA authorities and the admissibility of additional evidence in support of the case.
Headnote:
OEA Act - Disputed Lands - Sections 6, 7, 8A - The court discussed the validity of the settlement of the lands under Sections 6, 7, and 8A of the OEA Act. It also examined the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to sit upon an order of settlement passed under the OEA Act and the admissibility of additional evidence in support of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants claiming right, title, and interest over disputed lands. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, but the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The Plaintiff filed a Second Appeal on substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff did not have valid title to the suit lands and that the Defendants had acquired valid title and were in possession of the lands. The Court also held that the Second Appeal abated as a whole due to the demise of some Defendants.
Issues: Validity of settlement under OEA Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court, admissibility of additional evidence, abatement of the Second Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the settlement of lands under the OEA Act was void, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the settlement. It also found that the Appellate Court was justified in admitting additional evidence. The Second Appeal abated as a whole due to the demise of some Defendants.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed on both merit and technical grounds.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Naidu, J. - Admittedly the Appellant as Plaintiff had filed T.S. No. 362 of 1987 in the court of then 2nd Addl. Subordinate Judge (presently Civil Judge, Senior Division), Cuttack praying for a decree of permanent injunction and realisation of damages of Rs. 6,400.00 against fourteen Defendants.
2. The suit lands appertain to Sabak Settlement Plot No. 1211 of Khata No. 693 corresponding to Hal Settlement Plot No. 286 of Khata No. 251 measuring Ac. 0.60 decimals out of Ac. 1.365 decimals of village Bahar Bisinabar, Cuttack Town as per Schedule 'A' to the pliant.
3. This being a Second Appeal without dilating the facts, it will suffice to say that the Plaintiff claimed right, title and interest over the disputed lands by virtue of a sale deed said to have been executed in her favour by Tilotama Praharaj.
According to the Plaintiff, the disputed lands were part and parcel of an intermediary estate of late Chadrasekhar Praharaj, husband of Tilotama and situated at Mouza Bahar Bisinabar under Sidheswarpur Estate. After vesting of the estate, the same were settled in favour of Tilotama. On the other hand, according to the Defendants, Chandrasekhar Praharaj was never the intermediary in respect of the disputed lands and rather Padmanav Acharya and Gajendra Acharya were the intermediaries. They had inducted one Judhistir Pradhan as a tenant and the latter was in possession of the lands. After vesting of the Mouza in the State, Ekpadia was submitted in favour of said Judhistir and his name was also reflected in the Tenants' Ledger. He was recognized as a tenant by the State. After death of Judhistir, his son had alienated the suit lands in favour of the Defendants by different registered sale deeds and conveyed absolute right, title and interest in respect thereof. The Defendants thus claim to be the absolute owners in possession of the disputed lands which they claimed to have purchased.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed eight issues for deciding the suit. In order to substantiate their respective cases, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court after discussing the evidence in extenso and relying upon the order passed in favour of Tilotama under Sections 6, 7 and 8A of the OEA Act in OEA Misc. Case No. 22 of 1958 held that she had acquired valid title to the suit lands and the Plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by Tilotama had also acquired valid right, title and interest over the said lands. Accordingly the Trial Court decreed the suit permanently restraining the Defendants by way of injunction from interfering with Plaintiffs possession over the suit lands and directing the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 6,400.00 as damages to the Plaintiff.
The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were assailed by the Defendants in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1992 which was heard by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Cuttack. The Defendants also field a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC with a prayer to accept a certified copy of Register 'D-Part I' combined with Register 'A' maintained by the OEA authorities as additional evidence in support of their case stating that the said registers indicated the names of intermediaries in respect of the Mouza to which the suit lands appertained and threw light on the controversy and was also very much necessary for complete adjudication of the inter se dispute.
The Appellate Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the petition and the objection thereto, came to the conclusion that the certified copies sought to be accepted as additional evidence were highly essential for arriving at a just decision in the case. Accordingly it allowed the petition and accepted the said documents as additional evidence by marking the same as Ext. 14 and Ext. V.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and discussing the entire evidence, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion th
