In this title appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the appellate court's judgment which upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The lower courts found the sale-deed void as the illiterate vendor was defrauded regarding the land area.
The RSA No.177 of 2003 is dismissed. No order as to cost.
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.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK RSA No.177 of 2003
In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2002 and 16.08.2002 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Bargarh in Title Appeal No.41/57 of 1996-2001.
………
Tapneswar Meher
:::: Appellant.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Rahas Barik & Others :::: Respondents. Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
For Appellant … M/s. D.P. Sahoo, Advocate, M/s. Sailabala Jena, S. Mohanty, T.P. Tripathy, Advocates M/s. S.N. Mishra, B. Dash, B.N. Mishra, K. Behera, Adv. M/s. B.P. Tripathy, S. Ch. Behera, P.R. Mishra, S. Acharya, Advocates. For Respondents … --------------
P R E S E N T :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 05.10.2021 :: Date of Judgment: 27.10.2021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.Dash,J . The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2002 and 16.08.2002 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Bargarh in Title Appeal No.41/57 of 1996-2001.
{{ 2 }}
2 . By the above judgments and decrees, the appeal filed by the present Appellant under Section-96 of the Code being unsuccessful as the Plaintiff before the Trial Court has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1996 and 12.06.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Padampur in Title Suit No.21 of 1991 have been confirmed and the suit filed by the Appellant as the Plaintiff against the Respondent-Defendant has been dismissed.
3 . 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.
One Bimala Barik was the original owner in possession of the suit land measuring area Ac.0.075 decimals under Hamid Settlement Plot No.411(P) under Holding No.11 assigning with M.S. Plot No.853(P) under Holding No.96 in village Paikamal. She had inherited the same from her parents. Bimala sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by registered sale-deed dated 08.12.1975 for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that pursuant to the said sale, the Plaintiff had been delivered with the possession of the suit land by said vendor namely, Bimala.
The Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Bimala and on
19.06.1976, they executed a deed acknowledging the sale made by their
{{ 3 }}
mother in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was then in service and staying outside. In the year, 1989, he applied for mutation of the suit land. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being noticed filed their objection alleging that the consideration amount as promised for the transaction had not been paid by the Plaintiff to Bimala. The prayer for mutation was rejected with specific finding that despite the sale, the Plaintiff has not been in continuous possession of the suit land. The Defendant Nos.4 to 9 have in the meantime have purchased the suit land from Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore, the Plaintiff in the suit for declaration of right, title and interest as also confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and permanent injunction as arraigned those subsequent purchasers as parties.
5 . Case of the Defendants :-
The Plaintiff actually approached Bimala and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to purchase Ac.0.025 decimals of land and the agreed price was Rs.40
per decimal. It is stated that behind the back of the Defendant No.1 to 3 and prevailing upon their mother namely, Bimala, the Plaintiff being a shrewd person by manipulation has managed to obtain the registered sale-deed showing the extant of land as soled to be Ac.0.075 decimals for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that the Plaintiff has not paid the full amount and he had made token payment of Rs.750/-. The
{{ 4 }}
Defendants when subsequently approached the Plaintiff to pay the balance amount; he avoided on some pretext or others and then files the mutation case where objection was raised. The possession of the suit land is remaining with the Defendants is purchasers from them are now have entered into possession and accordingly the land had been mutated in their name. It is stated that the Plaintiff has practiced fraud on the mother of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and having remained silent for 12 years as all of a sudden sprang into action.
6 . On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed six issues. It appears that Issue No.1 is most important one and its answer finding has decided the fate of the suit. The trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record has recorded the finding that the Plaintiff has played fraud on his vendor, late Bimala Barik was an illiterate pardanashin lady and accordingly the sale-deed has been found to be void. With such finding, the Trial Court has said that the Plaintiff has not acquired any right, title and interest of the suit by virtue of that registered sale-deed dated 08.12.1975. Allegations as finally laid, the Trial Court to dismiss the suit.
The lower Appellate Court being moved by the unsuccessful Plaintiff has proceeded to examine the sustainability of the answer recorded by the Trial Court on the Issue No.1. In going to judge the
{{ 5 }}
same having discussed the evidence on record from all angles. The conclusion has been rendered that the Plaintiff has derived no right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of said sale-deed as claimed.
to have purchased the suit land by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 08.12.19975 and for the first time, he has moved for recording of the suit land in his name in the year, 1989. When the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold portions out of the suit land to different persons who got their purchased land mutated and obtained the record of right with such correction. These features clearly suggest that the Defendants have been in possession of the suit land and they having sold the suit land to different persons. The Mutation Authority has passed order in their favour finding their possession in the field.
Admittedly, the vendor is a lady remaining confined to the four
walls of the house. The acreage involved in the transaction is Ac.0.075 decimals, its consideration as is evident from the sale-deed projected as triumph card by the Plaintiff is Rs.1,000/-, which comes to Rs.13/- per decimals. It’s unconscionable to say that in the year, 1975 any immovable property of any part of the State would come to be valued at Rs.13/- per decimal. In this backdrop, let’s now plough through the
{{ 6 }}
evidence to see as to how far the allegation of fraud has been established. The Courts below have concurrently found that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Such finding of fact does not appear to be the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence and nothing surfaces on record to show that the Courts below have ignored certain material evidence on that score or have taken certain extraneous evidence into consideration in recording the finding. The specific allegation of the Defendants is that land of area of Ac.0.075 decimals was never the subject matter of discussion for the transaction between Bimala and them on one hand with the Plaintiff with the other. In view of all these, when the executants is pardanashin lady, hailing from rural pocket of the State, there remains no evidence from the side of the Plaintiff to show that Bimala had duly executed the registered sale-deed Ext.1 having full knowledge and understanding not only as to the contents of the documents but also specifically as to the acreage involved in the said transaction. The evidence from the side of the Plaintiff is not thee to establish the fact that the transaction between Bimala and the Plaintiff was having the involvement of specific area of land as noted. In that view of the matter, the Courts below are found to have rightly answered the issue that the Plaintiff has not derived by any right; title and interest by virtue of registered sale-deed vide Ext.1.
{{ 7 }}
counsel for the Appellant, that there arises the substantial question of law as indicated in paragraph-7 of the judgment arises for consideration
stands to be answered cannot be countenanced.
Narayan
(D. Dash),
Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned appellate judgment holding the sale-deed void due to fraud is legal and sustainable.
Whether there exists a substantial question of law deserving the interference of this Court in the matter.
Tapneswar Meher
Rahas Barik
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
