Remand of a case should be restricted to circumstances with substantial justification; otherwise, it can infringe upon the rights of the parties and disrupt judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants challenge the judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (FTC), Jagatsinghpur in Title Appeal No.105 of 2001 remanding the Title Suit No.28 of 1995/ 53 of 2001 to the trial court i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur for a fresh trial.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present respondent, claiming to be a co-sharer of joint undivided landed properties, filed the suit T.S. No. 28/53 of 1995/2001 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagatsinghpur, impleading the present appellants as defendants. The present respondent sought a declaration that a Sale Deed dated 16.06.1990 was void and illegal, and prayed for partition of the suit property, claiming a 1/4th share therein.

(ii) The present respondent contended that she is the daughter of Dhruba Rout and Padmabati, and the sibling of the present appellants. She claimed to have inherited Lot No. 1 of the schedule, which belonged to Dhruba Rout, and asserted that, upon the death of both her parents, she was entitled to a 1/4th share in the property. The present respondent further asserted that Plot Nos. 2808 measuring 0.05 decs. and 2819 measuring 0.07 decs. in Mouza Sanra originally belonged to Padmabati, who had been gifted the land by one Pasori Bewa.

(iii) The present respondent further contended that the present appellant fraudulently obtained a registered Sale Deed from Padmabati on 26.06.1990. She claimed that Padmabati, being a pardanashin woman and illiterate, had been misled into executing the Sale Deed, under the false impression that she was signing a power of attorney for her care. The present respondent argued that the Sale Deed was void and that, after the present appellants refused to partition the property, she was compelled to file the suit.

(iv) The present appellants, as defendants, contended that they were the children of Dhruba Rout and Padmabati, while the present respondent was the natural daughter of Mohani Pal, their maternal uncle. They argued that due to Mohani Pal’s poor financial condition, Dhruba had brought the present respondent into their care, incurred expenses for her marriage, and that her natural father acted as the Karta in her marriage. The present appellants further contended that, after Dhruba’s death, they distanced themselves from the present respondent due to her ill-tempered behavior. They claimed that the present respondent had no right to challenge the Sale Deed executed on 26.06.1990 and, being a stranger, was not entitled to file for partition.

(v) The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagatsinghpur, framed six issues in this case. Upon examining the material on record, including the present respondent’s school certificate, transfer certificate, and the testimonies of witnesses (four on behalf of the present respondent and three on behalf of the present appellants), the Court found no clinching or reliable evidence to substantiate the present respondent’s claim of being the daughter of Dhruba Rout. The witnesses, who were neither neighbors nor relatives of the deceased Dhruba Rout, did not possess any special knowledge relevant to the matter. In accordance with Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court noted that the prerequisites for establishing the relationship between the present respondent and Dhruba Rout through special knowledge were not fulfilled.

(vi) The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagatsinghpur also noted that the school transfer certificate showed the present respondent was admitted