Possession based on unregistered sale agreements does not confer legal rights, making occupants liable for eviction despite their claims of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. 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 22nd July 2022 and 5th August 2022 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No.06 of 2019.

The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.08 of 2016) for eviction of the Appellants arraigned as the Defendants therein and recovery of possession of the suit land.

The suit having been dismissed, the Respondents as the unsuccessful Plaintiffs had carried Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The First Appeal has been allowed in part directing the Appellants (Defendants) to vacate the suit land within a month failing which the possession would stand recovered from them in favour of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) following due process of law. These Appellants, therefore, being the aggrieved the Defendants having suffered from the judgment and decree passed by the Frist Appellate Court have filed this Second Appeal.

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 Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff’s Case: -

The suit land stands recorded in the name of the Plaintiff No.1, Sikhar Behera, Padana and Madhab Behera, the three sons of Chinta Behera. It is stated that in an amicable family partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of Sikhar; and he with his son had constructed house having asbestos roof over the suit land. The Defendants took the said house on rent from the Plaintiffs as agreed on payment on rent of Rs.500/- per month to be paid by 15th day of the succeeding month of occupation. There was no document in support of the said creation of tenancy. However, the Defendants when were paying the rent, they defaulted in making the payment of rent for their occupation from 01.10.2015. The Plaintiffs, therefore, served notice upon the Defendants demanding the payment of arrear rent and to vacate the suit house. The Defendants did not respond the same and in turn threatened the Plaintiffs which compelled the Plaintiffs to file the suit.

4. The Defendants by filing the written statement asserted that Madhab Behera, who is the brother of Plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit land as that had fallen in his share in the family partition of their properties amongst his brothers. It is further stated that said Madhab having received a sum of Rs.3000/- from the Defendants had delivered the possession of the suit land to the Defendants and since then the Defendants are in peaceful possession over the same by constructing the house over there. Further no document has been executed to the above effect by said Madhab. It is further stated that in order to regularize, Madhab on 11.05.2016 executed an agreement to sale that property in favour of the Defendants on receiving further sum of Rs.50,000/- with the condition that after correction of record of right, he would execute and register sale deed in their favour. The Defendants also pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land openly, peacefully, and continuously to the knowledge of all concerned including the Plaintiffs right from the year 1985. They again pleaded to have purchased the suit land measuring Ac.0.73 decimals and thus state to have the legal right to possess the same.

5. The Trial Court on the above pleadings, framed as many as five (5) issues. Upon examination of evidence let in by the parties and in the backdrop of the rival pleadings, having made an overall assessment of the same, the Trial Court arrived at a finding that the Plain