Nilagiri Minna Rao(Dead) And Others vs Malliboina Nagamani
2026 Latest Caselaw 2536 Ori

Orissa High Court

Nilagiri Minna Rao(Dead) And Others vs Malliboina Nagamani on 17 March, 2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                             R.S.A. No.19 of 2015

                     (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
                   Procedure, 1908)

                    Nilagiri Minna Rao(dead) and others ....                     Appellants

                                                     -versus-
                    Malliboina Nagamani                           ....          Respondent



                   Appeared in this case:-
                         For Appellants          :                 Mr. J.R Dash, Advocate

                         For Respondent          :              Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate


                    CORAM:
                    JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                            JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 / date of judgment : 17.03.2026

A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant and respondent in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiff

and defendant before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of

2007 and respondent and appellant respectively before the learned 1st

appellate court in the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011.

3. The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S.

No.44 of 2007 against the defendant(respondent in this 2nd appeal) was a

suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The properties described in the schedule of the plaint are the suit

properties.

As per the case of the plaintiff, while, he(plaintiff) was minor in

the year 1966, the suit properties were purchased jointly by the minor

plaintiff represented though this father guardian and one Ratnalu Arjun

of Gummalaxmipuram in the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh

through registered Sale Deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966. Since the date of

purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, he(plaintiff) was possessing the suit

properties exclusively through his father guardian, as his co-purchaser,

Ratnalu Arjun was a resident of distant place, i.e., Gummalaxmipuram in

the District of Shrikakulam of Andhra Pradesh and he was residing there.

He(plaintiff) and his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun applied for

mutation of the suit properties to their names by filing Mutation Case

No.186 of 1967 and the said Mutation Case No.186 of 1967 was allowed

on dated 25.06.1967 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada in favour of the

plaintiff and his co-purchaser Ratnalu Arjun, but, as the plaintiff was

minor by then, for which, RoR of the suit properties, was prepared by the

Tahasil authorities in the name of his co-purchaser, i.e., Ratnalu Arjun,

which was unknown to the minor plaintiff. When one Himirika Rupa

created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit

properties, for which, he(plaintiff) filed a suit for injunction against

Himirika Rupa in respect of the suit properties. That suit vide T.S. No.51

of 2001 filed by the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the

learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Rayagada and Himirika Rupa was

injuncted permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff

over the suit properties.

Since the date of attaining majority in the year 1971 till yet,

he(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties independently

without any guardianship. When, the co-purchaser of the plaintiff, i.e.,

Ratnalu Arjun was incapable to possess the suit properties, then,

he(Ratnalu Arjun) requested plaintiff to purchase his half share in the suit

properties from him, to which, the plaintiff agreed and the consideration

amount thereof was fixed as Rs.6,500/-. The plaintiff paid the said

consideration amount to Ratnalu Arjun in two installments and

he(plaintiff) became the exclusive owner of the suit properties, but,

unfortunately before execution and registration of sale deed in

respect of the share of Ratnalu Arjun in favour of the plaintiff, the said

Ratnalu Arjun died. Soon after the death of Ratnalu Arjun, his wife

also died. Ratnalu Arjun and his wife died without issue.

He(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties exclusively

since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966 continuously till yet. As,

Ratnalu Arjun and his wife had no issue, therefore, after the death of

Ratnalu Arjun and his wife, their interest in the suit properties had

extinguished and as per law, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of

the suit properties. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties

was confirmed through the decree passed in T.S. No.51 of 2001 against

Himirika Rupa.

When, the plaintiff came to know that, one R. Rama Rao of

Gummalaxmipuram has been set up by the local Real Estate Brokers to

grab the suit properties through execution and registration of illegal sale

deed in respect of the suit properties in their favour, then, he(plaintiff)

filed an application before the District Sub-registrar, Rayagada praying

for non-acceptance of any deed for sale in respect of the suit properties

for registration, if executed by any stranger. For which, the land brokers

by that time could not succeed in their attempt, but, subsequently on

dated 01.09.2007 at about 12.00 Noon, the defendant came to the suit

properties with some labourers and dug the earth in the same and when

the plaintiff came to know the same, he(plaintiff) protested against the

said illegal actions of the defendant, then, the defendant expressed that,

she has acquired title over a portion of suit properties by purchasing the

same from R. Rama Rao of Gummalaxmipuram. So, he(plaintiff) filed

the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 against the defendant praying for

declaration his right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties

and to injunct the defendant permanently from entering into the suit

properties.

5. Having been noticed from the learned trial court in the suit vide

C.S. No.44 of 2007, the defendant contested the same by filing her

written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his

plaint taking her stands specifically that, the plaintiff is not the purchaser

of the suit properties and he(plaintiff) was/is not in possession over the

same. The suit properties were purchased exclusively by Ratnalu Arjun.

Since the date of purchase, Ratnalu Arjun was possessing the suit

properties exclusively being the exclusive owner thereof. So, the suit

properties were mutated in the name of Ratnalu Arjun in Mutation Case

No.186 of 1967. The plaintiff has not filed any petition at any point of

time before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for insertion of his name with

Ratnalu Arjun in the RoR of the suit properties. R. Rama Rao was the

duly adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun. R. Rama Rao has sold the suit

properties to her(defendant) through RSD No.1395 of 2006 and

she(defendant) is in possession over the same after purchasing from R.

Rama Rao. The judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.51 of 2001

between the plaintiff and Himirika Rupa is not binding upon

her(defendant) or her vendor R.Rama Rao. Ratnalu Arjun had not sold

the suit properties to the plaintiff at any point of time. Ratnalu Arjun had

also not received any amount from the plaintiff to sell his share in the suit

properties. Ratnalu Arjun had never allowed the plaintiff to possess his

share in the suit properties. Ratnalu Arjun and his wife R. Ammayamma

had adopted R. Rama Rao in the year 1974 as their son. The adoption to

R. Rama Rao as the son of Ratnalu Arjun is valid and legal. After the

death of Ratnalu Arjun and his wife, their interest in the suit properties

devolved upon their adopted son R. Rama Rao and as such, R. Rama Rao

was the owner and in possession over the suit properties since the death

of Ratnalu Arjun and his wife. Legal heir certificate was issued in favour

of R. Rama Rao as the adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun and R.

Ammayamma.

She(defendant) has mutated the suit properties to her name and

after Mutation, Khata No.62/3509 Plot No.283/390/4148 for an area

A.0.10 cents has already been prepared in her name. So, the suit of the

plaintiff is not maintainable in respect of the suit properties without the

impleadment of R. Rama Rao(adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun) as a party.

Because, he is the necessary party to the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is

barred by limitation and the same is also under valuation. For which, the

plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit. Therefore, the suit of

the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies

between the parties, altogether ten numbers of issues were framed by the

learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 and the said issues

are:-

ISSUES

i. Is the suit maintainable?

ii. Has the plaintiff got cause of action to file the suit?

iii. Has the suit been properly valued and have proper Court Fees been paid?

iv. Has the plaintiff validly acquired the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun over the suit land for consideration amount of Rs.6,500/-?

v. Is R. Rama Rao the adopted son and therefore the legal heir of Ratnalu Arjun and has he succeed to the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun over the suit land in such capacity?

vi. Has the vendor of the defendant, namely, Nilakantha Sahukar acquired valid title and possession over the suit land or any portion thereof by registered Sale Deed No.1942 of 2005?

vii. Has the defendant by virtue of registered Sale Deed No.1208 of 2007 and 1395 of 2006 acquired any title and possession in respect of the suit land or any portion thereof from Nilakantha Sahukar and R. Rama Rao respectively?

viii. Has the plaintiff alternatively acquired title over the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun by the doctrine of outster?

ix. Is the plaintiff in exclusive possession over the suit land?

x. To what relief(s), the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the

plaintiff against the defendant, he(plaintiff) examined five witnesses from

his side including him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide

Exts.1 to 15.

On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff,

the defendant examined three witnesses from her side including herself

as D.W.1 and exhibited several documents on her behalf vide Exts.A to J.

8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials,

documents and evidence available in the record, the learned trial court

answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff except issue nos.4 and 8

and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned trial

court in the issues, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff

in part on contest against the defendant and injuncted to the defendant

restraining her(defendant) permanently from interfering in the possession

and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties, but, refused to

declare the title of the plaintiff over the entire suit properties assigning

the reasons that,

"The plaintiff has been able to prove successfully his possession over the suit properties as well as the absence of possession of the defendant in the same, but, he(plaintiff) has failed to establish his title in respect of the half share of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties. Because, the suit properties were purchased jointly through RSD No.245 dated 30.03.1966 by the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun and the half interest of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties has not been transferred legally through a deed of conveyance to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff is in possession over the entire suit properties including the half share of Ratnalu Arjun therein and the defendant has failed to establish that, her vendor, i.e., R. Rama Rao was the adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun as well as his successor. For which, she(defendant) has failed to establish her interest in the suit properties, as she(defendant) has failed to establish that, her vendor was the adopted son and successor of Ratnalu Arjun.

When, it is established that, on the basis of the sale deed No.245 dated 30.03.1966, the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun had jointly purchased the suit properties and they had joint interest in the same and when, there is no evidence that, there was any partition between Ratnalu Arjun and the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and when there is no proof that, the suit properties were divided / partitioned between the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun and when, it is established that, the plaintiff is in possession over the entire suit properties and when, the half share of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit properties has not been transferred lawfully to the plaintiff, then at this juncture, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest over the entire suit properties, but, he(plaintiff) is entitled to protect his possession in the suit properties against the defendant, as the defendant has not been able to establish the interest of her vendor in the suit properties to transfer her(defendant)."

9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid part judgment and decree

passed by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant, the defendant challenged the same preferring the 1st appeal

vide R.F.A. No.34 of 2011 being appellant against the plaintiff arraying

him(plaintiff) as respondent.

10. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, learned

1st appellate court allowed that 1st appeal vide RFA No.34 of 2011 of the

defendant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2011 and

13.10.2011 respectively passed by the learned trial court in the suit vide

C.S. No.44 of 2007 as per its judgment and decree dated 20.12.2014 and

27.12.2014 respectively and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S.

No.44 of 2007 on contest assigning the reasons that,

"the plaintiff not being a heir of Ratnalu Arjun cannot question the successorship of R. Rama Rao as the successor of Ratnalu Arjun. The execution of the sale deeds vide Exts.E, A and B in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant had not been contested nor disputed. After the death of Ratnalu Arjun, his brother's son, i.e., R. Rama Rao even without deed of adoption could succeed his interest in the suit land. The findings of the learned trial court being contrary to the same cannot be sustained. So, the findings of the learned trial court that, the defendant's vendor, i.e., R. Rama Rao had no interest in the suit properties to transfer cannot be accepted.

By mere possession, the plaintiff cannot upset the valid deeds for sale, under which, title of the property has passed. For which, the plaintiff neither can claim the relief of injunction nor the same can be granted in his favour. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree, i.e., permanent injunction passed by the learned trial court against the defendant cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal of the defendant is allowed and part judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff for injunction is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed."

11. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated

20.12.2014 and 27.12.2014 respectively passed by the learned 1 st

appellate court in R.F.A. No.34 of 2011 against the plaintiff and in

favour of the defendant, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring this

2nd appeal being the appellant against the defendant arraying

her(defendant) as respondent.

12. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following

substantial questions of law, i.e.:-

(i) Whether in absence of proof of adoption, the transaction including Ext.E confers right, title and interest on the parties?

(ii) Whether in view of the specific case of the defendant in written statement at paragraph-5 that, the adoption took place in the year 1974 and R. Rama Rao was the adopted son of Ratnalu Arjun, lower appellate court was right in inventing a third case in dismissing the suit?

13. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

appellant(plaintiff) and learned counsel for the respondent(defendant).

14. When, as per the findings and observations made by the learned

trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in their respective judgments

and decrees on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and materials

available in the record, the aforesaid both the formulated substantial

questions of law are inter-linked having ample nexus with each other,

then, both the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are taken

up together analogously for their discussions hereunder :-

15. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the suit properties were

purchased jointly by the plaintiff and Ratnalu Arjun through sale deed

No.245 dated 30.03.1966(Ext.2) and when plaintiff is not the successor

or the family member of Ratnalu Arjun and when, there is no deed of

conveyance regarding transfer of the interest of Ratnalu Arjun in the suit

properties in favour of the plaintiff and when, the RoR in the name of

Ratnalu Arjun in respect of the suit properties itself cannot create his title

over the entire suit properties in faovur of Ratnalu Arjun, then at this

juncture, the concurrent findings and observations of made by the learned

trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court in their respective

judgments and decrees that, the plaintiff has failed to establish his

exclusive title over the entire suit properties and for that reason,

he(plaintiff) is not entitled to get the decree of declaration of title over the

entire suit properties cannot be held as erroneous. Therefore, the question

of interfering with the said part of findings of the learned trial court as

well as learned 1st appellate court refusing to grant the decree of

declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire suit

properties cannot be interfered in this 2nd appeal.

16. So far as the decree of permanent injunction sought for by the

plaintiff in respect of the suit properties against the defendant is

concerned,

it is the specific findings of the learned trial court in the judgment

and decree, after appreciating of the oral and documentary evidence of

the parties that, since the date of purchase, i.e., since 30.03.1966, the

plaintiff had/has been possessing the suit properties, but, the defendant is

not in possession over the same. For which, the learned trial court passed

the decree for permanent injunction against the defendant and in favour

of the plaintiff.

To which, the learned 1st appellate court reversed as per the

findings made in Para No.10 of the impugned judgment and decree

passed in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.34 of 2011 assigning the reasons

that,

"Mere possession of the plaintiff cannot upset the valid deed of sale under which the defendant acquired title in the suit properties, WHICH INDIRECTLY CORROBORATES TO THE FINDINGS IN FAVOUR OF POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES MADE BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT.

As such, the findings and the observations made by the learned trial court in respect of the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and absence of possession of defendant in the same has also been corroborated by the learned 1st appellate court through the aforesaid observation, i.e., mere possession of the plaintiff cannot upset the valid sale deed under which the defendant has acquired title in the suit properties."

The well corroborated un-assailed testimonies of P.W. Nos.1 and 4

is going to show that, the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the

suit properties since 30.03.1966, in which, neither the defendant nor her

vender R. Rama Rao had/has possession.

17. Now, the question arises, when the suit of the plaintiff is for

declaration and permanent injunction and when, the plaintiff failed to get

the decree for declaration of his title, then at this juncture, whether the

plaintiff will be entitled to get the decree for injunction against the

defendant as per law.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in

the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Rusi Kumar Sahu and others vrs. Sri Sri Rasa @ Rahas Behari Thakura and others: reported in 1987(2) OLR-126 that,

When the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact, whether other reliefs can be granted by it or not(Para-8)

(ii) In a case between Prafulla Chandra Mishra vrs. Kanhu Charan Mohanty and others : reported in 2024(II) OLR-276 that,

When, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide one relief, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court irrespective of the fact, whether, the other reliefs can be granted or not.(Para-8)

(iii) In a case between Shri Boynepally Srijayavardhan vrs. V. Nirupama Reddy and others decided in Civil Appeal No.9904 of 2025(S.C.) that,

Where, out of many reliefs claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff is found entitled to even one of them, the suit is maintainable.

(iv) In a case between Bhabav Palla Triru Kappa and others vrs.

Anarnapurnama and another (Para-7) reported in 2024(4) Civil Court Cases-102(Karnataka) that,

In a suit with declaration of title and permanent injunction, if title of plaintiff over the suit properties is not proved and when, oral and documentary evidence establish possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property since 1968 onwards, in that case, relief of permanent injunction rightly granted, though declaratory relief is not maintainable.

(v) In a case between Rame Gouda(dead) by LRs. vrs. M. Varadappa Naidu(dead) by LRs. and another : reported in (2004) 1 SCC-769 that,

When a person is establishing his/her possession, he/she is entitled to a limited injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his/her possession except by due process of law.

(vi) In a case between State of Orissa and another vrs. Pitambar Maikap and others decided in S.A. No.148 of 1996 that,

Although plaintiff failed to prove his title in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and when he(plaintiff) succeed in proving his possession over the suit properties, to which, he is entitled to protect, unless dispossess by due process of law, then, he is entitled to get the decree of injunction restraining the defendant, though he is not entitled to get the decree of declaration of title.

(vii) In a case between Balbir Singh@ Balvir Singh and others vrs. Balwant Singh and others : reported in 2025(4) Civil Court Cases-166(P&H) that,

When, the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit properties and that defendants were not in possession of the same--Courts below were duly justified in granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. (Para-14)

18. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is

established that, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit properties

since 30.03.1966, but, neither the defendant nor her vendor, i.e., R. Rama

Rao was/is in possession over the same, then at this juncture, in view of

the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of

the Hon'ble Courts and the Apex Court, even though, the plaintiff is not

entitled to get the decree for declaration of his title over the entire suit

properties, still then, he(plaintiff) is entitled to get the decree for

injunction against the defendant on the basis of his possession.

19. When, the learned trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff

vide C.S. No.44 of 2007 in part against the defendant for injunction,

refusing the prayer for declaration of title, then at this juncture, the

learned 1st appellate court should not have reversed the same, as the part

judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was not erroneous

in any manner for the reasons assigned above.

For which, there is justification under law for making interference

with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1 st

appellate court in RFA No.34 of 2011 through this 2nd appeal filed by the

appellant/plaintiff.

20. Therefore, there is merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the

appellant/plaintiff. The same must succeed.

21. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is allowed

on contest.

The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1 st

appellate court in RFA No.34 of 2011 is set aside.

The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in C.S.

No.44 of 2007 is confirmed.

                                                                              ( A.C. Behera )
                                                                                  Judge
                     Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Signature NotTheVerified    th
                 17 of March, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:56:03