Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Ramesh Chandra Pradhan and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Respondents
S.A. No.124 of 1991
Decided on : 16-05-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Mohanty
Civil death must be established through clear evidence and specific pleading; mere absence for seven years is insufficient to claim adverse possession.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 80(2) - Appeal against reversal of decision - Plaintiffs claimed title through adverse possession over government land, but failed to establish civil death of their predecessor due to insufficient evidence. Court found no merit in appeal. (Paras 12, 18, 20)
(B) Civil Death - Requirement to prove civil death is established by clear pleading and evidence, including specific date of disappearance. Mere absence for seven years is insufficient without proof. Plaintiffs failed to meet burden of proof to establish civil death of predecessor. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed possession over government land after their predecessor was reportedly unheard of for over seven years. Defendants disputed claims and asserted no civil death occurred. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed this decision for lack of proof regarding civil death. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The 1st appellate court found no sufficient evidence for the existence of civil death of Ratnakar Pradhan, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The trial court's decree was thus set aside and the plaintiffs' appeal dismissed. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate court justified its inference regarding the civil death of Ratnakar Pradhan based on the available evidence. (Para 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming civil death; mere absence from known whereabouts for seven years does not automatically imply death without clear evidence. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: 2nd appeal dismissed on contest. Judgments of the 1st appellate court affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing background of plaintiffs' claim. (Para 4) |
| 2. defendants challenged plaintiffs' claims. (Para 5) |
| 3. issues framed by the trial court. (Para 6) |
| 4. trial court favors plaintiffs after evaluation. (Para 8) |
| 5. appellate court reverses trial court decision. (Para 10) |
| 6. determination of civil death requirement. (Para 12 , 19) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal confirmed. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. BEHERA, J.
This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and respondent nos.1 and 2 before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1989.
3. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 and 2 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and appellants before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1989.
The respondent no.3 in this 2nd appeal was the defendant no.3 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and the respondent no.3 before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A.No.20 of 1989.
4. The case of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) as per the averments made in their plaint was that, plaintiff no.1 is the wife of Ratnakar Pradhan and plaintiff no.2 is the son of Ratnakar Pradhan.
The husband of the plaintiff no.1 and the father of the plaintiff no.2, i.e., Ratnakar Pradhan is unheard of for a long period and due to non-availability of his whereabouts in spite of the best efforts of the plaintiffs to search out him, he (Ratnakar Pradhan) could not be traced out, for which, he (Ratnakar Pradhan) has not been made as a party in the suit. So, the plaintiffs have taken the shoes of Ratnakar Pradhan.
The suit land stands recorded in the name of Government as per the revenue records of Sabik as well as Hal Settlement. Ratnakar Pradhan (husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiff no.2) was possessing the suit properties peacefully reclaiming the bushes from the same and after the civil death of Ratnakar Pradhan, the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit properties like Ratnakar Pradhan to the knowledge of all without any hindrance from anybody.
The suit properties are adjacent to the plaintiffs recorded properties. The plaintiffs are the owners of Plot No.2620 A0.21 decimals. The suit properties are A0.15 decimals of Plot No.2621, which is situated to the adjacent South of their Plot No.2620.
The plaintiffs and Ratnakar Pradhan as of their right have been possessing the suit properties, i.e., Plot No.2621 along with the trees standing thereon amalgamating the same with their Plot No.2620 converting the same into Gharabari Kisam since the time of Late Bharat Pradhan, i.e., since the time of the father of Ratnakar Pradhan.
The grand-father of the plaintiff no.2, i.e., Late Bharat Pradhan had raised two Teak(Saguan) trees over suit Plot No.2621 during his life time and the said two teak (Saguan) trees were grown up under the care, protection, ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. For which, they(plaintiffs) have perfected their title over the suit properties by virtue of their peaceful possession over the same.
As per the notings made in the remarks column of Hal RoR, the defendant nos.1 to 3 have admitted the possession of Ratnakar Pradhan over the suit properties. Because, unauthorized occupation of Ratnakar Pradhan in respect of the suit properties for an area of A0.15 decimals has been noted in the remarks column of the Hal RoR. So, the State has lost its right, title and interest over the suit properties. Because, the plaintiffs have derived title of the same by virtue of adverse possession possessing the same for more than 50 years without any hindrance from any quarter.
When, on dated 13.02.1988, the defendants forcefully cut two teak trees from the suit properties in spite of the resistance of the plai
