(Junior Division) vs Tikelal Rout And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11121 Ori

Orissa High Court

(Junior Division) vs Tikelal Rout And Others on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            RSA No.467 of 2016

        [In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of CPC from
        the judgment followed by decree dated 10.08.2016 passed
        in RFA No.40 of 2015 by the District Judge, Bargarh,
        arising out of the judgment followed by decree dated
        17.08.2015 passed in C.S. No.8 of 2003 by the Civil Judge
        (Junior Division), Barpali]


AFR     Satyabati Padhan                         ....   Appellant

                                   -Versus-

        Tikelal Rout and others                  .... Respondents



        Advocate(s) appeared in this case:
        For the Appellant     :Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty Sr. Advocate
                               M/s. Sumitra Mohanty, S.N. Biswal and
                              Kalyan Mohapatra, Advocates.

        For Respondents       :M/s. U.C. Mishra, Ashutosh Mishra,
                              A. Bal, J.K. Mohapatra, & B.P.
                              Samal, Advocates


        CORAM:
                 JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                               JUDGMENT

th 12 December, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing

judgment. The suit of the plaintiff being C.S. No. 08 of

2003 for declaration and permanent injunction being

decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barpali

vide judgment dated 17.08.2015 followed by decree was

reversed by learned District Judge, Bargarh in RFA No. 40

of 2015 vide judgment dated 10.08.2016 followed by

decree.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as

per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that

one Padmalochan Majhi was the recorded owner in respect

of the schedule property. He died in the year 1970 leaving

behind his only daughter, Prabasi. The original plaintiff is

the only daughter of Prabasi and as such, succeeded to the

properties as the full owner in possession. She constructed

two rooms over the said property. When the defendants

created disturbance, she enquired and came to know that

the Schedule B property was wrongly recorded in the

names of the defendants, Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya

Kumar Rout in the last major settlement. In the earlier

settlement, i.e. Hamid Settlement, the entire Barpali basti

was recorded under one holding (No.183) and one plot (No.

1408) with an area of Ac.35.58 dec. In the draft ROR

prepared during major settlement, the property was

recorded in the name of the plaintiff, but in the final

settlement, B Schedule property was wrongly recorded in

the names of Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya Kumar Rout.

Hence the suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing

joint written statement, inter alia, claiming that the

grandfather of the defendant No.1, namely, Shyam Sundar

Rout was the recorded tenant in the year 1930-31

settlement. He had constructed a residential house over a

portion of the said plot and was using the remaining

portion as house site. After his death, the defendants are

possessing Schedule B property, which was rightly

recorded in their names in the 1970 major settlement. In

the draft ROR however, the property was wrongly recorded

in the name of Padmalochan but was corrected basing on

the Amin's report.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court

framed the following issues for determination.

"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file the suit?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land?

(iv) Whether Padmalochan Majhi was the owner in possession of the suit land and it has been succeeded in order of succession by plaintiff?

(v) Whether the suit land has been wrongly recorded the name of Lalit Rout and Salya Kumar rout during Major Settlement?

(vi) Whether the grand-father of defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property and after his death the defendants have been possessing the same in their own right, title and interest?

(vii) Whether the suit is valued properly and this Court has jurisdiction to try the same?

(viii) What order relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled to?"

6. After appreciating the evidence, particularly

the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court

held that the plaintiff and her ancestors were in possession

of the B Schedule property during their lifetime. The

defendants could not establish with sufficient evidence that

their grandfather was the owner of the suit property or that

they were possessing the same. It was further held that the

defendants could not prove that the plaintiff had

knowledge of the wrong recording of the Schedule B

property in the names of Lalit Kumar Rout and Salya

Kumar Rout during major settlement. The suit was thus

decreed.

7. The defendants carried appeal. The appellate

Court after reappreciating the evidence on record found

that the documentary evidence was overwhelming in favour

of the defendants and that the plaintiff had failed to

establish the source of title over B Schedule property. The

final ROR having been published in the name of the

defendants, carries a presumption of correctness which

was never successfully rebutted by the plaintiff. The appeal

was thus allowed by reversing the judgment and decree of

the Trial Court.

8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this

second appeal, which was admitted on the following

substantial questions of law.

"(a) Whether the M.S. ROR (Ext.4) = (Ext.C) as has been construed to be the documentary of title in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property by the lower appellate court in disagreeing with the view of the trial court in that event is sustainable in the eye of law?

(b) Whether the finding of possession of the suit land as has been rendered by the lower appellate Court is the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary?"

9. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior

Counsel with Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for

the respondents.

10. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the reasoning

adopted by the First Appellate Court to reverse the findings

of the Trial Court are not tenable inasmuch as the Trial

Court had based its finding on clear oral evidence and it

was not demonstrated as to how such findings were wrong.

Since ROR cannot be conclusive proof of title, the Civil

Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title

regardless of the recording in the ROR, which neither

creates nor extinguishes title.

11. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, on the other hand,

would argue that the evidence being led to show that the

Schedule B land stood recorded in the name of Shyam

Sundar Rout in the 1930-31 Hamid Settlement, Lalit

Kumar Rout and Salya Kumar Rout being his grandsons

succeeded to the said property, which was recorded in the

1970 major settlement operation. Thus, it is the ancestral

property of the defendants. Except for relying upon the

draft ROR (parcha) published under Section 12 of the

Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, the plaintiff could not

establish her claim over the property. The draft ROR was

mistakenly prepared, which was corrected during final

ROR. The defendants have proved that they are owners in

possession by adducing adequate documentary evidence.

Since the ROR was never challenged within the period of

limitation under Section 42 of the Act, the suit was itself

barred by limitation. Mr. Mishra further refers to the age-

old practice followed in the country of placing reliance on

documents as against oral evidence. According to him, if

documentary evidence is available, the oral evidence need

not be looked into.

12. The claim of title of the plaintiff over B

Schedule property appears to be based on two things -

their alleged possession and secondly, the recording in the

draft ROR. Since the question of title is involved,

possession, if at all, would not be conclusive. Draft ROR is

published under Section 12 of the Odisha Survey and

Settlement Act. In the instant case, it was published in the

name of plaintiff's father- Padmalochan Majhi. This was

held to be a mistake as per the report of the Amin based on

local enquiry and consequently, final ROR was corrected

and published in the names of the successors of the

original recorded owner, Shyam Sundar Rout. As regards,

the antecedent title of the defendants, it is borne out from

the evidence that the land was recorded in the name of

their ancestor, Shyam Sundar Rout in the 1930-31 Hamid

Settlement and the names of their successors, Lalit Kumar

Rout and Salya Kumar Rout was recorded in the 1970

settlement. Thus, prima facie, the defendants appear to

have clear title over the suit property. On the other hand,

the plaintiff, other than relying upon the draft ROR has not

been able to demonstrate his source of title. Simply stated,

it has not been demonstrated as to how the title of the

property was acquired by the plaintiff and from which

source. In contrast, as already stated, the source of title of

the defendants is clear and unambiguous.

13. As regards possession also, the defendants

have adduced sufficient evidence in the form of holding tax

and revenue rent receipts. The 1970 settlement ROR was

never challenged within the prescribed period of three

years as per Section 42 of the Act. That apart, in the

absence of acceptable rebuttal evidence, the entries in the

ROR are to be presumed correct as per Section 13 of the

Act. The First Appellate Court was of the view that on the

face of such overwhelming documentary evidence, the oral

evidence adduced by the parties could not have been relied

upon by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court followed

the long standing principle, and rightly so, that as between

documentary and oral evidence, the former is to be

accepted as, witnesses may lie but documents do not. In a

civil dispute, documents shall always have over-bearing

influence rather than oral evidence.

14. Having perused the impugned judgments, this

Court finds no reason to differ from the findings returned

by the First Appellate Court with which it fully concurs.

The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit,

is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

..............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12th December, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Dec-2025 18:44:46