Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
D. Dash, J.
Annapurna Bag - Appellant
Versus
Motiram Sahu & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 445 of 2005
Decided On : 21-01-2022
Gift - Property Dispute - Section 122, 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court discussed the validity of a gift of immovable property and its acceptance by the donee. It emphasized the requirement of a registered instrument for a valid gift and the consequences of an invalid gift on the possession and title of the donee. The court held that possession under a void gift cannot be considered adverse to the true owner and does not lead to acquisition of title by adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of a land, alleging that it came to her from her mother. The Defendants claimed possession based on a gift made by the Plaintiff's mother. The lower Appellate Court found in favor of the Defendants, stating that they had perfected their title by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the Defendants under the void gift did not constitute adverse possession and did not extinguish the Plaintiff's title over the land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Defendants had perfected their title over the land by adverse possession based on a void gift.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that possession under a void gift cannot be considered adverse to the true owner and does not lead to acquisition of title by adverse possession.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court were set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favor of the Plaintiff were restored.
JUDGMENT
D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda in R.F.A. (T.S.) No.1 of 2004.
By the said judgment and decree, the First Appeal filed by the present Respondents, who had been unsuccessful in the suit, has been allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 and 10.12.2003 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jharsuguda in T.S. No.19 of 2002, filed by the present Appellant as the Plaintiff have been set aside.
The Appellant as the Plaintiff having got the decree against the Respondents-Defendants as to declaration of her right, title, interest and confirmation of possession; has now been non-suited by the lower Appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.
3. The Plaintiffs' case is that one Brundabati, wife of Bansidhar and Rangabati, wife of Hrudananda Naik were the original recorded tenants in respect of the suit land. Brundabati died issueless whereas Rangabati died leaving behind the Plaintiff as her only daughter. The suit property having come from the maternal side of the Plaintiff; she finally succeeded to the same. The record of right was duly corrected by the order passed in Mutation Case No.486 of 1996 and 904 of 1094. The Plaintiff thus remained in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land by paying rent to the State as its owner. It is stated that she has not transferred the suit land to anybody and it had also never been transferred either by Brundabati or Rangabati to any person in any mode such as sale, mortgage, gift etc. and the possession of the same had never been parted with.
The Defendants are stated to be complete strangers having absolutely no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. It is alleged that they unauthorizedly trespassed over the suit land and tried to construct a house over the same for running a club. So, the Plaintiff, finding no other immediate alternative, initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, an order of restrain was passed but when the proceeding lapsed by efflux of time, the Defendants again made such attempt of putting up construction. So, the suit has come to be filed.
4. The Defendants, while traversing the plaint averments, in their written statement, have taken a positive stand that Brundabati, during her life time, had gifted the suit land in favour of 'Tungi Pada' club on 1.5.1987 and evidencing the same, she had so given in writing on a plain paper, which had been accepted by the villagers. It is stated that said move was for the welfare and benefit of the villagers at large. The Defendants since the date of such gift claim to be in possession of the suit land by constructing a house over it and using the same as their club house. It is stated that the Plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. An alternative case has been projected by the Defendants that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession by remaining in possession of the suit land openly, continuously without any interruption from any quarter for upward of the prescribed period since the date of move, i.e., 01.05.1987 when they got into possession on being so gifted with.
5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court, having framed eight issues, has answered the most important issue such as issue nos.1 and 2 in favour of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit having been decreed; the unsuccessful Defendants had carried the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code.
6. The lower Appellate Court, on examination of the evidence and upon their evaluation, although has finally found that the evidence let in from the side of the parties on the factum of possession of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
