Orissa High Court
Prahallad Sahoo vs Janardan Sahoo on 8 January, 2024
Author: D. Dash
Bench: D. Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. NO.334 OF 2022
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 8th August
2022 & 19th August 2022 respectively passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Athgarh in R.F.A. No.05 of 2016
confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015 and
07.11.2015 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Baramba in Civil Suit (I) No.34 of 2012.
----
Prahallad Sahoo .... Appellant
-versus-
Janardan Sahoo .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
================================================
For Appellant - Mr. B. Rath,
Advocate.
For Respondent - -------------------------
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
Date of Hearing: 03.01.2024 :: 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 8th August 2022 & 19th August 2022
respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Athgarh in R.F.A. No.05 of 2016.
{{ 2 }}
The Respondent (Plaintiff) had filed the Civil Suit No.34 of
2012 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Baramba. The suit was for declaration of his right, title, interest,
and possession as also permanent injunction as against the
Appellant, who had been arraigned as the sole Defendant therein.
The suit having been decreed, the present Appellant being the
aggrieved Defendant had carried Appeal under section 96 of the
Code, it has also been dismissed.
2. 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.
3. Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant was the owner-in-
possession of the suit land. He has purchased the land measuring
Ac.0.06 decimals under Plot No.379 appertaining the Khata No.214
in mouza: Sunapal from Pabitra Behera under registered sale-deed
No.271 dated 17.02.1998. On getting delivery of possession, the
Defendant was possessing the said land of which the suit land is a
part. The Defendant has sold the suit land to the Plaintiff for
consideration of Rs.6000/- by executing registered sale-deed dated
10.11.1999. Pursuant to the same, the Defendant has delivered
{{ 3 }}
possession to the suit land to the Plaintiff, who was in possession of
the said land as its owner by virtue of the said purchase. The
Defendant after having sold the suit land to the Plaintiff on
10.11.1999 filed a mutation proceeding bearing No.1390 of 2004
seeking mutation of the suit land as also the other lands in his name.
The mutation was allowed and that was on the basis of the sale-deed
dated 17.02.1998 standing in the name of the Defendant. When the
Plaintiff intended to file the mutation case for recording of his
purchased land in his name, it came to his knowledge that after sale
of the suit land to him, the Defendant has again obtained the mutated
record of right of his purchased land including the suit land which he
had sold in his name. When it came to the notice of the Plaintiff that
the Defendant was trying to sale away the land basing upon the
mutation record, the suit came to be filed.
4. The Defendant in his written statement while traversing the
plaint averments although admitted to have purchased Ac.0.06
decimals of land from Pabitra Behera, but has denied to have
executed registered sale-deed 10.11.1999 standing in favour of the
Plaintiff. It was also denied that the Plaintiff had been delivered with
the possession of the said land covered under the said registered
sale-deed dated 10.11.1999. The Defendant asserted to have never
{{ 4 }}
sold the suit land to the Plaintiff and therefore, it is said that the
Plaintiff had no right, title and possession over the suit land.
According to the Defendant, the Mutation Authority had rightly
allowed the mutation of the entire land including the suit land in his
favour. It is stated that the Plaintiff had not paid the consideration
money and therefore, there has been no delivery of possession of the
suit land to him.
5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many
as nine (9) issues. Coming to issue nos.5 and 7 which concern/s with
the claim of the Plaintiff as he has right, title and possession over the
suit land on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by the
Defendant in his favour on 10.11.1999, the Trial Court on detail
examination of evidence and their analysis has answered those in
favour of the Plaintiff. This finding has decided the fate of the suit
and accordingly, the suit stood decreed.
The Defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court having carried the First Appeal has
been unsuccessful.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant) submitted that
the findings of the Courts below regarding payment of consideration
under Ext.1, the sale-deed standing in the name of the Plaintiff is the
{{ 5 }}
outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence. He further submitted
that the Courts below ought to have held the sale-deed, Ext.1 to be
void and inoperative, when the Plaintiff has failed to prove the
payment of consideration as well as delivery of possession of the suit
land. According to him, the Courts below ought to have held that the
Plaintiff has never been clothed with the title in respect of the suit
land by virtue of the so-called sale-deed, Ext.1. He, therefore, urged
for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial
question of law.
8. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read
the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through
the plaint and written statement filed by the parties as well as the
evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by them.
9. The factum of execution and registration of Ext.1 standing in
favour of the Plaintiff involving the suit land is not in dispute. The
Defendant claims to have not been paid with the consideration and
he states to have therefore not delivered the possession of the suit
land to the Plaintiff. The evidence on record reveal that the Plaintiff
has obtained original sale-deed from the registration office, which
has been proved in the case as Ext.1. It has been recital in Ext.1 that
on payment of consideration money, the delivery of possession
{{ 6 }}
would be handed over. The recitals of the sale-deed, Ext.1 being
considered with the other evidence available on record, more
importantly, the evidence of the Defendant, it is not gatherable
therefrom that the passing of title of the suit land was dependent on
passing of consideration. Moreover, the Plaintiff has adduced
evidence with regard to the payment of consideration not only
through himself but also by examining one more witness P.W.2. The
Courts below have rightly taken the circumstances as to receipt of
the original sale-deed by the Plaintiff from the Sub-Registrar Office
in its proper perspective in saying that had the consideration money
been not paid or had it been intended that the passing of title would
be only on payment of consideration, the Plaintiff would not have
been authorized by the Defendant to receive the original sale-deed
which is the document of title and keep it in his custody. The burden
of proof was lying upon the Defendant to show that despite the
execution of the sale-deed, the intention was that the passing of title
would stand arrested till payment of consideration which he has not
received and thus the title has not passed to the hands of the Plaintiff.
The pleading in the written statement as also the evidence let
in by the Defendant on a plain reading would show that such burden
of proof has not at all been discharged. Furthermore, the Defendant
{{ 7 }}
has not taken any step to get the sale-deed declared void, when the
fact remains that on the above ground of challenge as has been made
by the Defendant, the sale is not ipso facto void but voidable and it
was thus so required to be which claim too as by now is barred by
limitation.
For all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned Counsel
for the Appellant (Defendant) cannot be countenanced with to say
that there arises any substantial question of law for being answered,
meriting admission of this Appeal.
10. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to cost.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
