IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Ghanashyam Kuanr and Others – Appellants
Versus
Natabar Sethi and Another – Respondents
S.A. No.182 Of 1999
Decided On : 15-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal against prior judgments (Para 1) |
Judgment :
A.C. Behera, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
2 . The Appellants of this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 7 before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I and they were the Appellants in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.113 of 1994.
The Respondent Nos.1 of this Second Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I and he was the Respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.113 of 1994.
Respondent No.2 of this Second Appeal was the proforma defendant No.8 before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I and he was the proforma Respondent No.2 before the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.113 of 1994.
3 . The suit of the plaintiff (who is the Respondent No.1 in this Second Appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4 . The case of the plaintiff as per the averments made by him in his plaint vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I was that, the suit properties were originally belonged to Hadibandhu Mohanty (proforma defendant No.8 of the suit). The said Hadibandhu Mohanty (proforma defendant No.8) sold the suit properties to the plaintiff by executing and registering a sale deed vide Ext.1 on dated 16.04.1988 in his favour for a consideration amount of Rs.5,000/- and delivered possession of the suit properties to him (plaintiff). Accordingly, since the date of purchase i.e. since 16.04.1988, the plaintiff possessed the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof. In the Hal settlement, the suit properties were recorded in the name of the plaintiff, but in the remarks column of the Hal R.o.R. of the suit plot, the father’s name of the defendant Nos.1 to 7 was indicated erroneously as an illegal possessor. So, taking the advantage of such illegal noting of possession in the remarks column of the Hal R.o.R. of the suit plot in favour of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 7, they (defendant Nos.1 to 7) tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties forcibly. For which, breach of peace created between them. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 in respect of the suit properties.
So, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing a suit vide T.S. No.176 of 1988-I against the defendants praying for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant Nos.1 to 7 permanently from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties.
5 . Having been noticed from the Trial Court in T.S. No.176 of 1988-I, defendant Nos.1 to 7 contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing their written statement jointly denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint by taking their stands inter alia therein that, the suit properties were originally under the ex-ntermediary estates of the then ex- intermediary Bira Kishore Das and the suit properties were Anabadi land. The said ex-intermediary of the suit properties inducted Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr as tenants thereof in the year 1938 by accepting salami and rent from them. Accordingly, on the basis of such induction as tenants over the suit properties, Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr cultivated the suit properties after 5th day of Raja in the year 1938. The said Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr were two brothers. One year thereafter i.e. in the year 1939, both the brothers i.e. Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr partitioned their all joint family properties including the suit properties and in such family partition, the suit properties were allotted into the share of the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 7 i.e. in favour of Biswanath Kuanr. Accordingly, since the year 1939, father of the defendant Nos.1 to 7 possessed th
Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim title through inheritance while asserting ownership via adverse possession; such claims are mutually exclusive.
Non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale deed, and a third party cannot contest its validity; possession by trespassers benefits the true owner.
Claiming adverse possession implies acknowledgment of the other party's title, and appellate courts must consider all evidence rather than rely solely on select reports.
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's title.
Claims of title through documentation cannot coexist with claims of adverse possession; a plaintiff must provide consistent and sufficient evidence to establish ownership.
Possession must be adverse and hostile to establish adverse possession; mere long-term possession does not equate to legal title without evidentiary support.
The appellate court reaffirmed that ownership claims based on adverse possession are invalid when prior leasehold rights are acknowledged, confirming the plaintiff's title over the property.
The plaintiff was recognized as the adopted son of Parau Majhi, but the suit for exclusive ownership was dismissed due to established co-ownership.
Claims of occupancy rights and adverse possession cannot coexist; an encroacher is not entitled to injunctive relief against the rightful owner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.