This appeal was dismissed. The appellate court found no fault in the lower appellate court's decision to non-suit the plaintiff, holding that no cause of action existed to protect any natural right of way since there was no threat of obstruction to the plaintiff's enjoyment.
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.
R.S.A. NO. 233 OF 2016
The appellant by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A. No. 52 of 2014 which is an appeal filed by this appellant under section 96 of the Code where this appellant had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in C.S. No. 297 of 2003; the suit instituted by the appellant as the plaintiff, nonsuiting her.
= 2 =
provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. It is further stated that on the basis of the petition, proceeding being initiated, the plaintiff was asked to pay land revenue for such possession. So the plaintiff claims to have acquired right, title and interest over the suit land and to have remained in possession as such. It has been time and again stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been approaching the authority all along for settlement of the suit land in her favour for ingress and egress to her house situated over her purchased land, but the same has not found favour with. At the end, the plea appears to be that she has perfected her title by way of adverse possession though it has been written in the plaint as :-
“xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
But the said was turned down, for which the plaintiff files this suit for settlement of the land in her favour, although the plaintiff has perfected her title adversely.”
= 3 =
= 4 =
has found itself to be not in a position to grant the said relief in the suit as laid. In the above premises, the lower appellate court’s view in finally dismissing the appeal cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of improper application of the settled law.
…………………….. D. Dash, J.
Narayan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal against the nonsuit of the plaintiff.
Whether a substantial question of law exists regarding the characterization of the suit as one for declaration of possessory title versus adverse possession.
Appellant
State and others
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
