Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 7
ORISSA HIGH COURT
A. C. Behera, J
RATNAKAR SAHOO – Appellant
Versus
SIBA PR. RAJU – Respondent
SA 411 / 2001
Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate; Mr. S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate
The court clarified that an Amin's report based on measurements without fixed points is inadmissible, necessitating a remand for fresh trial with a new Amin commissioner.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 26, Rules 9, 10, and 14 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Dispute over land measurement and possession - The trial court decreed the suit based on Amin's report, but the 1st appellate court dismissed it, rejecting the report due to lack of a fixed measurement point - The High Court found the dismissal unsustainable and remanded the matter for fresh trial with a new Amin commissioner. (Paras 13, 20, 22, 24, 25)
(B) Evidence - The evidentiary value of an Amin's report - The court clarified that a report based on measurements without fixed points is inadmissible, and the proper course is to appoint a new Amin for accurate measurement. (Paras 18, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a disputed area of land, claiming ownership and peaceful possession, while the defendants contested the claim based on their purchase of part of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 1st appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found merit in the appeal, stating that the 1st appellate court erred in dismissing the suit solely based on the Amin's report without appointing a new commissioner for accurate measurement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the 1st appellate court was correct in ignoring the Amin's report for setting aside the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal of the suit based on an inadmissible Amin report was erroneous, and the proper course was to remand the matter for fresh adjudication with a new Amin commissioner.
Result: The 2nd appeal is allowed in part, and the matter is remanded for fresh trial.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 03.01.2025 / date of judgment : 17.01.2025 A.C. 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.09 of 1986 and respondent no.1 before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1993.
3. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.09 of 1986 and appellants before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1993. The suit of the plaintiff(appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) vide T.S. No.09 of 1986 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction.
4. The suit properties are Hal Plot No.2359 under Hal Khata No.475 Ac.0.06 decimals, which corresponds to part of Sabik Plot No.769 under Sabik Khata No.184.
As per plaintiff’s case, the area of Sabik Plot No.769 under Sabik Khata No.184 was Ac.0.52 decimals in Mouza Patnagarh and the said Ac.0.52 decimals properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, in which, the father of plaintiff, i.e., Dharanidhar Sahoo along with two brothers of the father of the plaintiff, i.e., Sridhar Sahoo and Gouri Sahoo were the joint owners.
Out of that Ac.0.52 decimals of Sabik Plot No.769, Dharanidhar Sahoo, Sridhar Sahoo and Gouri Sahoo sold Ac.0.16 decimals of land to the predecessors of the defendants, i.e., Rama Raju and Narayan Raju by executing and registering sale deed dated 29.10.1954 and delivered possession thereof. After selling Ac.0.16 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.769 to the predecessors of the defendants, the remaining Ac.0.36 decemals of that Sabik Plot No.769 remained with Dharanidhara Sahoo, Sridhar Sahoo and Gouri Sahoo.
When Rama Raju and Narayan Raju died leaving behind the defendants as their successors, then, the defendants became the owners of the above purchased Ac.0.16 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.769 by their predecessors, i.e., Rama Raju and Narayan Raju and they(defendants) have been possessing that Ac.0.16 decimals of land jointly. The said Ac.0.16 decimals has become Hal Plot No.2359 Ac.0.16 decimals in the Hal RoR under Hal Khata No.475, which has been recorded jointly in the names of the defendants.
When, after selling Ac.0.16 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.769, the predecessors of the plaintiffs, i.e., Dharanidhar Sahoo, Sridhar Sahoo and Gouri Sahoo were the joint owns and in possession over rest Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.769, they(Dharanidhar Sahoo, Sridhar Sahoo and Gouri Sahoo) partitioned their said Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Plot No.769 along with their other joint properties between them and in such partition, the above Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.769 had fallen in the share of the father of the plaintiff, i.e., Dharanidhar Sahoo. Accordingly, Dharanidhar Sahoo became the exclusive owner over the said Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.769.
After partition, the Hal settlement RoR in respect of the said Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.769 was published exclusively in the name of Dharanidhar Sahoo(father of the plaintiff) under Hal Khata No.458 Plot No.2360 Ac.0.36 decimals.
When Dharanidhar Sahoo died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only successor, then, the above Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Hal Plot No.2360 devolved upon the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of Ac.0.36 decimals of land of Hal Plot No.2360 and he(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the same.
When, on dated 20.10.1985, the defendants created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiff over his Hal Plot No.2360 disclosing that, the Map area of their Hal Plot No.2359 is covering Ac.0.06 decimals area of Hal Plot No.2360 of the plaintiff, for which, he(plaintiff) measured the Map area of Hal Plot Nos.2359 and 2360 through an Amin and compared the same with the recorded area
