Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
D. Dash, J.
Sri Pravakar Upadhyaya & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bidyadhar Mishra & Ors. - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 136 of 2021
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Mr. S.B. Panda, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate, for Respondents
IMPORTANT POINT
The execution and acceptance of a gift deed do not require the donor's presence in a suit, and possession coupled with mutation records can establish ownership despite challenges to the deed's validity.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOUNDARY DISPUTE - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96, 100 - The court discussed the validity of a gift deed executed by Daitari Panda in favor of the plaintiffs, emphasizing that the execution and acceptance of the deed were sufficiently proven despite the defendants' claims. The court highlighted that the absence of the donor in the suit did not invalidate the gift, and the presumption of acceptance was established through mutation records. The interpretations of Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure were pivotal in affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of the boundary line of land and for permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed and a gift deed from Daitari Panda. The defendants contested the validity of the gift deed, asserting it was executed without Daitari's knowledge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established their ownership through valid documentation and possession. The trial court and the first appellate court's findings were upheld, confirming the validity of the gift deed and the plaintiffs' rights to the land.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the gift deed dated 18.08.2001 was validly executed in favor of the plaintiffs, particularly in light of the defendants' claims of its invalidity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution of the gift deed was valid as it was duly executed and accepted, and the absence of the donor in the suit did not invalidate the gift. The court emphasized that proof of execution sufficed for establishing ownership, and the plaintiffs' possession was corroborated by mutation records.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
D. Dash, J.
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have challenged the judgment and decree dated 5th August 2021 and 12th August 2021 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadrak in R.F.A. No.119 of 2014.
The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.239 of 2006) for declaration of the boundary line of the land described in Schedule-'A' of the plaint and permanent injunction as against the Appellants arraigned as the Defendants in the suit from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the said land by the Plaintiffs.
The suit having been decreed, the Defendants since thereby suffered had carried the Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The Appeal has also been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been confirmed. The Appellants as the Defendants thus have remained unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellants (Defendants), who have remained unsuccessful in the Trial Court as well as First 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. Plaintiff's case is that the suit land described in Schedule-'A' of the plaint originally belonging to Daitari Panda. He had no male child but had two daughters namely, Nirmala who is the wife of Plaintiff No.l and mother of Plaintiff No.2 and Rangalata another daughter namely, Rangalata, who is the Defendant No.2 and she is the wife of Defendant No.l and mother of Defendant Nos.3 & 4. It is further stated that two daughters of Daitari with their family were residing in the same village where their father Daitari was residing and they were residing right from the time of their marriage. Daitari being in need of money for his treatment had sold 3250 sq.links from Plot No.902, Ac.0.03 decimals from Plot No.906, Ac.0.04 decimals from Plot No.899 and Ac.0.34 decimals from Plot No.674 in toto 44250 sq.links. This was sold to the Plaintiff No.l, who happens to be his son-in-law, the husband of Nirmala, the daughter of Daitari namely, Nirmala. The sale was made by Daitari by executing registered sale-deed on 25.03.1996. From the time of purchase of the land, the Plaintiff No.l began to possess the same as its owner and that was also mutated in his name in Mutation Case No.1142 of 1996.
Daitari then, on 26.09.1998, gifted away some lands to his two grandsons i.e. Plaintiff No.2 (son of Nirmala) and Defendant No.3. Prasanna (son of Rangalata). He thereby gifted away Ac.4.15700 sq.links to Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.3. The donees since the time of the gift possesses the respective gifted land through their natural guardians. The Plaintiff No.1 after his marriage was looking after the cultivation of Daitari Panda and he had also taken him for pilgrimage by spending money from his own purse. Daitari being pleased with the service of Plaintiff No.l, then gifted the land of Ac.5.96950 sq.links to him by executing another registered gift of deed on l8.08.200l. The Plaintiff No.l from that time being delivered with the possession of the said land and accepting the said gift has been possessing the said land. The Plaintiffs thus, are claiming to be the exclusive owners of Schedule-'A' land. It is stated that the Defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, when they are the owners of the rest portion of the plots which they have also got on gift by Daitari. On 20.07.2006, when the Defendants attempted to forcibly encroached upon Schedule-'A' land on the pretext of demarcation, the Plaintiffs requested them for amicable demarcation to which they first agreed, but later on withdrew. So the Plaintiffs finally having no other alternative filed the suit.
4. The Defendant Nos.l to 3 in
