Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Krushnamani Das (Since Dead) By on 8 January, 2024
Author: D. Dash
Bench: D. Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. NO.79 OF 2019
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 20th August
2018 and 31st August 2018 respectively passed by the learned District
Judge, Baleswar in R.F.A. No.476 of 2014 confirming the judgment and
decree dated 19.08.2014 and 28.08.2014 respectively passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baleswar in Civil Suit No. 466 of
2012.
----
Bhagirathi Behera .... Appellant
-versus-
Krushnamani Das (Since dead) by .... Respondents
her LRs.
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
==============================================
For Appellant - Mr. U.C. Mishra,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. Maheswar Mohanty,
Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
Date of Hearing : 21.12.2023 :: Date of Judgment: 08.01.2024
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment
and decree dated 20th August 2018 and 31st August 2018 respectively
passed by the learned District Judge, Baleswar in R.F.A. No.476 of 2014.
The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.466 of 2012-
(I) in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Baleswar. The
suit was for declaration of the right, title, interest over the suit land and
{{ 2 }}
for permanent injunction with further prayer to declare the Major
Settlement (M.S.) Record of Right in respect of the suit property in the
name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents arraigned as the
sole Defendant is null and void. During pendency of the said suit, the
sole Defendant (Krushnamani Das) having died, these Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 being her legal representatives had been brought on record as
Defendant Nos. 1(ka) to 1(ga).
2. The suit having been dismissed, this Appellant as the unsuccessful
Plaintiff had carried an Appeal under Section-96 of the Code which too
has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance
of the Appellant (Plaintiff) who has remained as the unsuccessful in both
the Courts below.
3. 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.
4. Plaintiff's case is that one Krushna Mohan Rana was the owner in
possession of the suit land. In the current settlement, the land was
recorded in his name. Krushna Mohan while in possession of the suit land
and other lands as owner had alienated different extents of land to
different persons on different occasions by executing sale-deeds. The suit
land is said to have been sold by Krushna Mohan Rana to the mother of
{{ 3 }}
the Defendants namely, Krushnamani Das by executing registered sale-
deed dated 13.04.1951. Krushnamani while in possession of the suit
property, sold the same to Jagadananda Panda by executing registered
sale-deed dated 25.03.1957 and it is said that she delivered possession of
the said land to Jagadananda. Out of that purchased land i.e. Ac.0.19
decimals, land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals under Current Settlement
(C.S.) Plot No.629 was sold by Jagadananda to one Maheswar Jena,
which was towards the southern side, who subsequently sold it to one
Shantilata. It is stated that the said land sold being towards southern side
of the suit plot does not cover the suit land. The rest area of Ac.0.05
decimals situated towards the northern side of the suit plot No.629 was
subsequently sold by Jagadananda in favour of the Plaintiff, his father and
brother namely, Brundabana and Arjuna. Accordingly, they were
delivered with the possession of the same. The Plaintiff claims to have
remained in possession of the suit land with his father and brothers since
the time of their purchase. It is stated that the sold land under deed
No.127 relates to the suit land. Since dissension arose in the family, the
suit land and other joint family properties were partitioned amicably
between the Plaintiff, his father and brothers and they were allotted with
different portions of lands in their respective shares which they possessed.
The Plaintiff claims that the suit land was allotted to him and he thus
possessed the same. It is further stated that two brothers of the Plaintiff
{{ 4 }}
had pre-deceased their father and they died issueless. So, on the death of
the father, the Plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit land as
also other properties of the family and is in possession of the same.
During settlement operation, the father of the Plaintiff was looking after
the affairs as the Plaintiff was residing in Kolkata to earn his livelihood
and neither mother of the Defendants namely Krushnamani Das nor
Jagadananda Panda had advanced any claim for recording of the suit land
in their name. The father of the Plaintiff submitted the registered sale-
deed and other document in support of their possession. The Settlement
Authority however, finally directed recording of the suit land in the name
of the original Defendants. The settlement record relating to the suit land
is thus said to be void.
5. The Defendants did not contest the suit.
6. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate court having gone
through the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the Plaintiff and
testing the same in the touchstone of the pleadings have arrived at a
conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the suit land
and therefore is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.
7. Heard Mr. U.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
Maheswar Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondent assisted the
Court in the admission hearing. I have perused the judgments passed by
both the Courts below.
{{ 5 }}
8. The Plot Index, Ext.6 reveals that M.S. Plot No.662 is
corresponding to C.S. Plot No.692. The plaint schedule is not provided in
any sketch map specifying the said land of Ac.0.05 decimals out of
Ac.0.47 decimals of land under M.S. Plot No.462 sold under Ext.4. The
sale-deed Ext.4 is also not having any sketch map, it has been pleaded
that Jagadananda Panda had sold away land out of C.S. Plot No.692 to
Maheswar Jena to extent of Ac.014 decimals. Said extents of land are
stated to be recorded in the name of Shantilata, the vendee of Maheswar
Jena during Major Settlement. The M.S. Record of Right in favour of
Shantilata have however not been filed. Therefore, the Courts below are
absolutely right in holding that there cannot be a definite finding
specifying Ac.0.05 decimals of land covered under Ext.4 in saying that
the present suit land was sold under Ext.4 by Jagadananda to the Plaintiff,
his father and brothers and not in favour of Maheswar Jena. Said finding
thus is not at all found to a faulty one.
As stated by the Plaintiff, Krushna Mohan Rana had alienated the
suit land in favour of the original Defendant namely Krushnamani Das.
There is nothing to show that Krushna Mohan Rana had the title over the
suit land so as to convey to Krushnamani. The C.S. ROR has not been
filed to show the ownership of Krushna Mohan. When the original area of
C.S. No.692 is said to be Ac.0.19 decimals, the area of the corresponding
M.S. Plot No.462 is Ac.047 decimals. In that view of the matter, the
{{ 6 }}
courts below having found that the plea of the Plaintiff that the land sold
to Maheswar Jena and subsequently to Shantilata has already been
recorded in their name during Major Settlement is not acceptable. The
view so taken when firmly stands, there is no pleading as to how the area
of Ac.019 decimals of land of C.S. plot was enhanced to Ac.0.47
decimals during M.S. The suit land when is pleaded to be part of C.S. Plot
No.692 and M.S. Plot No.462, the plaint does not carry any sketch map to
identify the part plot nor it has been so described in the plaint schedule
providing the boundary. In that view of the matter, the suit is hit under the
provision of Order-7 Rule-3 of the Code.
9. With the aforesaid, this court finds that the findings of the Trial
Court which has been affirmed by the First Appellate court in non-suiting
the Plaintiff to be the outcome of just and proper appreciation of evidence
and their surfaces absolutely no perversity therein, the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Respondents fails.
10. In the result, this Court finds that there arises no such substantial
question of law for being answered, meriting admission of this Appeal;
thus, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Judge.
Narayan
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Jan-2024 15:25:57
