This second appeal was dismissed by a single judge. The lower appellate court had overturned a dismissal and decreed a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court found no substantial question of law arose as the lower appellate court's re-examination of evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim of title and possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.297 of 2008
7. 02.08.2016 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgments of the courts below.
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the le
arned District Judge, Balangir in RFA No. 7 of 2008. The learned District Judge by allowing th
e appeal has set aside the order of dismissal of C.S. No. 30 of 2006 passed by the learned Civ
il Judge (Jr.Divn.), Balangir and accordingly has decreed the suit granting the plaintiffs wit
h the reliefs claimed.
The respondents as the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their
right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the appellan
t-defendants.
3. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion,
the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.
4. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land stands recorded in the name of their
predecessor-in-interest namely, Arjuna Meswa. After his death, the plaintiffs claim to have b
een in possession of the suit land having succeeded to the same. It is alleged that the defend
ants having no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land when started creating p
roblem by repeatedly threatening them to dispossess, the suit had to be filed. The defendants
denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they have succeeded to the property from Arjuna Meswa
. It is also said that they have no right, title and interest over the same. They claim to hav
e been in possession of the suit land since long.
5. The trial court faced with the above rival pleadings framed in total six issue
s. At first taking up issue no. 1 concerning the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possess
ion over the suit land for decision, the trial court going through the evidence, has recorded
the finding against the plaintiffs that they have failed to prove their right, title, interes
t over the suit land. Thereafter while answering the other issue as regards the perfection of
title over the suit land by the defendants by way of adverse possession, although the answer w
as recorded against the defendants yet in view of the failure to the plaintiffs to prove their
title, the suit had been dismissed.
6. The lower appellate court on going to examine the sustainability of the above
finding of the trial court as is seen has gone to analyze the evidence as let in by the partie
s afresh at its level. Admittedly, the record of right Ext.1 shows that the suit land had been
recorded in the name of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest.
7. The presumption of correctness attached to the Ext. 1 has not been rebutted by
the defendants. The same also gets the corroboration from the factum of payment of rent by th
e plaintiffs prima facie further providing support to their claim of possession. The defendant
s have filed no documents in countering the above. None of their witnesses have also stated t
hat as to when they began to possess the suit land. The lower appellate court has examined the
evidence of all the witnesses. With such evidence on record as discussed, the lower appellate
court having decreed the suit, this Court is not in a position to conclude that the lower app
ellate court has erred either in fact or law in setting aside the finding of the trial court a
gainst the plaintiffs that they have no right, title and interest over the suit land.
In that view of the matter, it is thus seen that no such substantial question
of law arises in the case for admission of this second appeal.
8. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
D.Dash, J.
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's finding regarding the plaintiffs' lack of title.
Appellants
Respondents
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court