This appeal against a decree confirming recovery of possession was dismissed. The Court held that the claim of adverse possession by the appellants was not a substantial question of law warranting admission, as their evidence and pleadings failed to satisfy legal requirements for acquiring title by adverse possession.
No order as to costs.
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.379 of 2019
The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2019 and 01.11.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A. No.100 of 2017.
By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No.528 of 2012.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court.
3. The Plaintiff’s case is that she purchased the suit land from one Radha Sahu by registered sale deed dated 23.11.2011 for valuable consideration and as such is the owner of the same. Radha Sahu is said to have purchased the land in question from its original owner by registered sale deed in the year 1960. It is her case that the Defendant No.1 was the tenant under Radha Sahu and she having sold the property to the Plaintiff had intimated the tenant as regards the said transaction with further instruction that he should pay the rent to her vendee. It is stated that Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 are two brothers and Defendant No.3 is the wife of Defendant No.1. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants attorned the Plaintiff as their landlady and had promised to pay the rent for their occupation of the suit premises @ Rs.2000/- per month. However, they avoided to pay the rent and filed a suit bearing No.413 of 2011 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Berhampur through Defendant No.2 for permanent injunction. The Plaintiff appearing in the said suit, have filed the written statement. Thereafter the Plaintiff issued the notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act to the Defendants. In response to the said notice, the Defendants denied the facts stated therein. So, the Plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the Defendants. The Plaintiff side by side has pleaded that Purusottam Sahu is not the adoptive father of the Plaintiff and it is false to say the Defendant is had paid a a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- said Purusottam Sahu and Radha Sahu (vendor of the Plaintiff) for purchase of the suit house.
4. The Defendant Nos.1 and 3 contested the Suit by filing the written statement. They challenged the sale deed based upon which the Plaintiff claims her right, title and interest over the suit land and her ownership to be of no value in the eye of law. It be stated at this stage that Radha Sahu is none other than the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 had once claimed himself to be the adopted son of Purusottam Sahu and Radha Sahu which has
been negated in earlier suit and appeal. It is further case of the Defendants that in in the year 2001, Purusottam being in urgent need of money for his business, decided to sale the land to the father of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 when expressed his intention to purchase the same and accordingly he had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Purusottam Sahu and Radha Sahu. It is, however, said that the deed of conveyance could not come into being because of the resistance by the Plaintiff. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 claim to be in possession of the suit house land and house with their children and having continued to posses the suit land for quite a long period they claim to have acquired title over the said land. They deny the relationship of the landlord and tenant between them Radha Sahu. They also deny to have attorned the Plaintiff as their landlady and to have agreed at any point of time to pay the monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month to them.
5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed as many eight issues. Taking up Issue No.5, the finding has been rendered that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Radha Sahu and the Defendants. Next going to issue nos.6 and 7 as to the entitlement of a decree of recovery of possession of the suit house, the Trial Court based upon the title of the Plaintiff which she has found to have established has held the Plaintiff’s entitlement to a decree for recovery of the possession of the suit land and house from the Defendants.
The Defendant Nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, had carried an Appeal under section 96 of the Code. In proceeding to judge the sustainability of the findings of the Court below, in the backdrop of the rival case and upon examination of the evidence on record, the lower Appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
This Appeal has now been filed by the Defendant No.3, the wife of Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.1 has been arraigned as one of the Respondents
Learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant No.3) submits that the Courts below have erred both on fact and law in not holding the Plaintiff’s claim as untenable. It is submitted that by ignoring the important factual aspects as those emanate from the evidence on record that the Defendant No.3 and her family have remained in possession of the suit house for more than 12 years, the Courts below ought to have held that they have perfected the title over the same by adverse possession. That, according to him, is the substantial question of law involved in this case for admission of this Appeal.
6. In order to address the above submission, at the cost of the repetition, the case projected by the Defendants in their written statement need to be placed for provide appreciation. It has been stated that the Defendant No.1 was given in adoption to
Purusottam Sahu and Radha Sahu by his natural parents and then it has been pleaded that Purusottam being in need of money for his business, had decided to sale the land in question through his wife Radha Sahu and for the purpose, although had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, no deed of conveyance was executed to that effect being resisted by the Plaintiff. The claim as to the adoption of Defendant No.1 has already been negated in T.S. No.86 of 1985 filed by Defendant No.1 against Purusottam, his wife and two others. That was a suit for partition at the instance of Shivaram being the Plaintiff. The First Appeal No.245 of 1987 being carried to this Court is stated to have also been dismissed. The Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have admitted in their written statement that the ownership of the property was resting with Radha Sahu as they clearly plead that they had paid consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the land. In the absence of any registered document of sale coming into being pursuant to the agreed proposal and receipt of consideration, if any, of the property rested with Radha Sahu. The Plaintiffs case is that she had purchased the land by a registered sale deed from that Radha Sahu. In such situation, it was incumbent for the Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to specific plead and prove as to since which day, they started possessing the suit land and house denying the title of Radha Sahu and adverse to her interest and that as such they continued for upward of 12 years without any interruption exercising all the rights of ownership to
the detriment of that Radha and others claiming through her. Here in the case, not only that the pleadings tendered by the Defendants fall far short of those requirements but also the evidence let in by them at all satisfy the legal needs requirements for establishment of a claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession over the suit land and house.
For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant No.3) that the case involves any substantial question of law meriting admission of this Appeal.
7. In the wake of aforesaid, the Appeal stands dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
( D. Dash) Judge
Basu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law regarding adverse possession necessitating its admission.
Whether the Defendants have successfully established title to the suit land through adverse possession.
Defendant No.3
Defendant No.1
Plaintiff
D. Dash
Basu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
