Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D. DASH, J.
Maheswar Patel & Others - Appellants
Versus
Khatkuri Gond & Others - Respondents
SA No. 72 of 1999
Decided On : 18-07-2022
For the Appellants : Mr. Debasis Pattnaik.
For the Respondents: M/s. N.C. Pati, S.K. Acharya, A.K. Mohapatra & P.K. Khuntia.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiffs to establish their claim, and insufficient evidence and lack of documentation can lead to the dismissal of the case.
Headnote:
Adverse Inference - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - Ext.1, Ext.2 - The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts. The plaintiffs failed to prove their claim over the property for holding religious festivities based on insufficient evidence and lack of documentation. The court found no justifiable reason to disturb the lower courts' decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their right and title over a piece of land for holding religious festivities. The Defendants contested the suit, claiming the land as their ancestral property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appeal also failed. The present Appeal was filed to answer substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their claim over the land for holding religious festivities based on insufficient evidence and lack of documentation. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts.
Issues: The main issue was the establishment of the Plaintiffs' claim over the land for holding religious festivities. The substantial questions of law in the appeal were whether adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of all the Plaintiffs and whether certain documents conclusively prove the disputed land was being used for religious purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to prove that the land was given to them for holding religious festivities. The lack of documentation and insufficient evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
D. Dash, J.
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1998 & 07.01.1999 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Sundergarh, in Title Appeal No.22 of 1993.
By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellants, being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1993 & 26.06.1993 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Sundergarh in Title Suit No.18 of 1991, have been confirmed.
These Appellants (Plaintiffs) thus have been non-suited in the suit that they have filed against the Respondents (Defendants) filed the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, in their order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.
3. The Plaintiffs filed the suit in their representative character representating the villagers of Chitabhanga in the township of Sudnergarh for declaration of their right and title over the suit land seeking further prayer to direct the Defendants not to do any overt-act over the suit land. The suit land measures Ac.0.031/2 decimals and stands recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Defendants in the record of the Sabik Settlement, which came to be subsequently recorded in the names of the fathers of the Defendants in the record of Hal Settlement. It is stated that when the fathers of the Defendants were continuing to exercise the right of their ownership over the suit land and as such possessing the same, in a village meeting convened sometime in the year 1948, one of the recorded tenants, namely, Hazaru Gond agreed to dedicate/endow the suit land in favour of the villagers of Village Chittabhanga represented by the Plaintiffs for the purpose of observance of religious festivals over the same and then he did so. It is asserted that since the year 1948, the villagers including the Plaintiffs have been using the suit land for the performance of religious festivities by holding Astamprahari and Rahas etc. It is alleged that sometime in the year 1991, the Defendants openly declared that the suit land belong to them and so they would possess the same. The suit, therefore, came to be filed.
4. The Defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they have asserted that the property is their ancestral property and neither Hazaru nor any of his heirs or they themselves have ever given or dedicated or endowed or set part the suit land for the purpose of holding religious festival over there by the villagers. It is their case that the suit land stood all along recorded in the name of their ancestors and that remained the possession the subsequent Settlement Operation. It is stated that they are in possession of the suit land and paying the rent to the State. It is further said that religious festivity like Astamprahari and Rahas are being held over the suit land for 3-4 days in an area and that has all along been with their permission.
5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed as many as eight issues. Coming to answer the crucial issue, i.e., issue no.4 as to the establishment/acceptance of the case of the Plaintiffs that one Hazaru Gond had given the suit land to the villagers for its use by them for observance of religious festivities, upon examination of the evidence and their analysis, the answer has been returned in the negative. This has practically led the Trial Court o dismiss the suit.
6. The Plaintiffs, having failed in the suit in getting the relief, as prayed for, have filed the First Appeal, which too has failed.
7. The present Appeal has been admitted on 30.03.1999 to answer the substantial questions of law, as indicated in Ground No.II(A) & (D), which read as under:-
“(A) Whether adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of all the Plaintiffs?; and
(D) Whether Exts.1 & 2
