Documentary evidence, particularly final ROR, takes precedence over oral claims in property title disputes; unsustainable claims must be rebutted within legal timeframes.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a reversing judgment. The suit of the plaintiff being C.S. No. 08 of 2003 for declaration and permanent injunction being decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barpali vide judgment dated 17.08.2015 followed by decree was reversed by learned District Judge, Bargarh in RFA No. 40 of 2015 vide judgment dated 10.08.2016 followed by decree.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that one Padmalochan Majhi was the recorded owner in respect of the schedule property. He died in the year 1970 leaving behind his only daughter, Prabasi. The original plaintiff is the only daughter of Prabasi and as such, succeeded to the properties as the full owner in possession. She constructed two rooms over the said property. When the defendants created disturbance, she enquired and came to know that the Schedule B property was wrongly recorded in the names of the defendants, Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya Kumar Rout in the last major settlement. In the earlier settlement, i.e. Hamid Settlement, the entire Barpali basti was recorded under one holding (No.183) and one plot (No. 1408) with an area of Ac.35.58 dec. In the draft ROR prepared during major settlement, the property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff, but in the final settlement, B Schedule property was wrongly recorded in the names of Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya Kumar Rout. Hence the suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement, inter alia, claiming that the grandfather of the defendant No.1, namely, Shyam Sundar Rout was the recorded tenant in the year 1930-31 settlement. He had constructed a residential house over a portion of the said plot and was using the remaining portion as house site. After his death, the defendants are possessing Schedule B property, which was rightly recorded in their names in the 1970 major settlement. In the draft ROR however, the property was wrongly recorded in the name of Padmalochan but was corrected basing on the Amin’s report.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination.

“(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file the suit?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land?

(iv) Whether Padmalochan Majhi was the owner in possession of the suit land and it has been succeeded in order of succession by plaintiff?

(v) Whether the suit land has been wrongly recorded the name of Lalit Rout and Salya Kumar rout during Major Settlement?

(vi) Whether the grand-father of defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the ‘B’ schedule property and after his death the defendants have been possessing the same in their own right, title and interest?

(vii) Whether the suit is valued properly and this Court has jurisdiction to try the same?

(viii) What order relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled to?”

6. After appreciating the evidence, particularly the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff and her ancestors were in possession of the B Schedule property during their lifetime. The defendants could not establish with sufficient evidence that their grandfather was the owner of the suit property or that they were possessing the same. It was further held that the defendants could not prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the wrong recording of the Schedule B property in the names of Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya Kumar Rout during