ORISSA HIGH COURT
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.
Bhaktaram Barik (dead) and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Uttam Panchali (dead) and Ors. – Respondents
S.A. No.91 of 1992
Decided on 26.8.2025
Property Law – Title – When a plaintiff prays for declaration of his right, title and interest over suit properties, in that case, onus for proving title of plaintiff over suit properties lies solely upon plaintiff and he (plaintiff) shall prove his title over suit properties independently without depending upon defendant’s failure to prove its title on the same – Plaintiff is not entitled to get declaration of title, if such title could not be established by him by leading convincing evidence – Weakness in defendant’s claim for title to property cannot establish plaintiff’s title – Second Appeal filed by appellant (plaintiff) dismissed on merit. (Paras 16 and 21)
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.—This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.
2. The appellant in this 2nd Appeal was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.11 of 1986 and respondent before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.50/2 of 1988/89.
The respondent in this 2nd Appeal was the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.11 of 1986 and appellant before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.50/2 of 1988/89.
3. The suit of the plaintiff (appellant) vide T.S. No.11 of 1986 was a suit for declaration of title and eviction against the defendant (respondent).
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court against the defendant as per the averments made in his plaint was that, the properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint measuring an area of Ac.3.65 decimals was Government waste land, to which, he (plaintiff) was possessing since 1951. For which, an encroachment case vide Encroachment Case Nos.66/63 of 63/64 was initiated against him (plaintiff), but the said Schedule “A” properties were settled in the name of the plaintiff as per order passed in Lease Case No.114 of 1971 by the Tahasildar after receiving Rs.288/- as Salami from him (plaintiff) and the possession of that Schedule “A” properties was delivered to him (plaintiff) through the revenue inspector formally in the year 1972. Accordingly, the plaintiff was in peaceful possession over the properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint.
The schedule “B” properties being the part of Schedule “A” properties are the disputed properties in the suit. Therefore, Schedule “B” properties are the suit properties. In October, 1982, the defendant forcibly trespassed into the “B” schedule suit properties. For which, a case under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 vide Criminal Misc. Case No.41/1982 was initiated in the Court of S.D.M, Kuchinda between him (plaintiff) and defendant. In that criminal Misc. Case No.41 of 1982, the S.D.M, Kuchinda wrongfully declared the possession of the defendant over the “B” schedule suit properties on dated 18.10.1985. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.11 of 1986 against the defendant praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the “B” schedule suit properties and to recover the possession of the suit properties from the defendant evicting the defendant from the same.
5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.11 of 1986, the defendant contested the same filing his written statement denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiff against him (defendant) taking his stands specifically therein that, the plaintiff was/is not in possession over the “B” schedule properties at any point of time. According to him, he (defendant) had reclaimed the “B” schedule suit properties and he is in possession over the same since last 30 to 35 years. He (defendant) had applied before the Tahasildar for leasing out the “B” Schedule suit properties in his favour and on the basis of his application, a lease case vide Lease Case No.114 of 1971 was initiated in respect of that “B” schedule suit properties and an enquiry was conducted. In the meantime, Major Settlement Operation started, for which, the Tahasildar submitted the records of Lease Case No.114 of 1971 before the Settlement Authorities, but the Settlement Authorities subsequently returned back the said case to the Tahasildar giving observations that, the matter is within the competency of the Tahasildar but not the Settlement Authorities. After return of the Lease Case No.114 of 1971 to the Tahasildar, Tahasildar without issuing any notice of proclamation and without hearing any objection, the Tahasildar, illegally issued Patta in respect of “B” schedule suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. After knowing about the same, the defendant objected before the Tahasildar against the issuance of Patta in respec
City Municipal Council Bhalki by its Chief Officer vs. Gurappa (D) by LRs and Anr.
Jagdish Prasad Patel (D) through Lrs. vs. Shivnath
Title – Weakness in defendant’s claim for title to property cannot establish plaintiff’s title.
The burden of proof in title declaration cases lies on the plaintiff to independently establish title, regardless of the defendant's claims or evidence.
In property disputes where neither party has a valid title, the person in prior possession is entitled to recover possession, and a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable even if the title i....
Mere possession does not confer possessory title; non-joinder of the true owner is grounds for dismissal.
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 plaintiff cannot claim easement rights over government land against a defendant without involving the state as an interested party, making such a suit for injunction unmaintainable.
Claims of occupancy rights and adverse possession cannot coexist; an encroacher is not entitled to injunctive relief against the rightful owner.
A claim for title by adverse possession must be clearly pleaded with specific dates and evidence of denial of the true owner's title; mere long possession is insufficient.
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's title.
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.