Dismissed

Lord Sri Jagannath v. Raghunath Samal

Orissa HC11 Apr 2023WP(C)/11343/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing an unregistered sale deed to be impounded. The Court held the trial court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, noting impoundment does not prove the document.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order directing impoundment upheld; trial court directed to ensure early disposal.

Lord Sri Jagannath Vs Raghunath Samal — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11343 OF 2006

¶2

Lord Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Samantaray, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Raghunath Samal

¶5

…. Opp. Party Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

11.04.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Perused the kind minutes of the Hon’ble Chief Justice at Flag-X assigning the matter to this Bench.

¶14

Order dated 6^th March, 2006 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S. No.33/113 of 2005-04 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby an unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952 has been directed to be impounded.

¶15

Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the DefendantPetitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the PlaintiffOpposite Party for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit land and for other ancillary as well as consequential relief on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952, which has never seen the light of the day before it is presented in the trial Court. It is his submission that all throughout the PlaintiffOpposite Party tried to establish his right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of an unregistered ‘Hata Patta’ dated 4^th August, 1952. At his instance a proceeding under

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Section 144 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 187 of 2004 was initiated before the Executive Magistrate, Puri against Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije at Puri represented through its Administrator in respect of the suit property. The said proceeding was dropped. Assailing the same, the Opposite Party also preferred Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2004, which was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Puri. The Plaintiff-Opposite Party in both the forum claimed title over the suit property on the basis of said Hata Patta. Having failed in his attempt to grab the suit property, the Petitioner has filed the present suit taking a completely different stand claiming his title on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952. The Petitioner also moved the Settlement Authorities and ultimately, the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack vide its order dated 9^th August, 2010 ( Annexure-4 ) in O.S.S. Case No.1933 of 2003 dismissed the revision filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party under Section 32 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 holding that learned Appellate Court committed no error in dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner rejecting the prayer to record the suit land in his name. Since the Opposite Party is trying the play fraud with the Court by producing a forged and fabricated document (the unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952), it should not have been directed to be impounded. Learned trial Court while exercising power under Order XIII Rule 8 C.P.C. should be careful to see as to whether the document is necessary for just adjudication of the suit and the Plaintiff has come to the Court with clean hand to prove his title on the basis of the document sought to be impounded. The

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

said material aspect has been completely lost sight of by learned trial Court.

¶22

In support of his submission, Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. –v- Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, reported in 1994 (I) OLR (SC) 201, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶23

“ The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loandodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

¶24

xxx xxx xxx

¶25

A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite Party.”

¶26

He also relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7873 of 2004, disposed of on 1^st March, 2016 (between Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfat Sri Jagannath

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

Temple Managing Committee, Puri and the Tahasildar-cumEstate Abolition Collector, Puri and others ), in which the very same property was the subject matter of dispute, which was vested in the State on the basis of a notification dated 18^th March, 2974 under Section 3(A) of the Odisha Estate Abolition Act, 1951. Although Sri Jagannath Temple filed claim case, both the O.E.A. Collector and District Magistrate, Puri rejected its claim. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7873 of 2004, in which this Court taking into consideration the ratio decided in the case of Jagannath Temple Managing Committee –v- Siddha Math and others, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 542 set aside the order of the O.E.A. Collector-cumTahasildar, Puri as well as the District Magistrate, Puri. Since it has already been settled that the suit land is the property of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri (Petitioner), learned trial Court by directing to impound the unregistered sale deed has impliedly enlarged the scope of the suit and tried to give fresh lease of life to the litigation, which has already been set at rest. These material aspects were lost sight of learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party to impound the unregistered document. It is also submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to impound a document in view of Sections 31 to 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as the Collector is the competent authority to deal with the matter. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Opposite Party vehemently objects to the submission made by learned

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

// 5 //

¶33

counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner and contends that by directing to impound the unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952, the genuineness of the document is not proved. Admittedly, hearing of the suit has not yet commenced and before commencement of trial of the suit, the Plaintiff-Opposite Party filed a petition to impound the unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952, as it was not properly stamped. Since the Plaintiff-Opposite Party is relying upon the said document, it has to be impounded to be considered by the Court for admission in evidence. The Defendant-Petitioner is at liberty to raise objection with regard to its admission when it will be produced for admission in evidence. The rigor to prove the document is still attached to the unregistered sale deed and the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff-Opposite Party to discharge the same. As such, learned trial Court has committed no error in issuing direction to impound the document on payment of deficit stamp duty. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that before commencement of the hearing of the suit, the Plaintiff-Opposite Party filed a petition under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C. to impound the unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952 on the basis of which he claims title over the suit property. For consideration of a document to be admitted in evidence, it has to be impounded, if proper stamp duty on the said document is not paid. Admittedly, the sale deed in question is unregistered one. Hence, no stamp duty has been paid on it. Thus, considering the petition under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C., learned trial Court directed to impound the document on

¶34

Page 5 of 7

¶35

// 6 //

¶36

payment of deficit stamp duty by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party. By issuing such a direction, the document itself is not proved. Rigor of the proof of document is still attached to the said unregistered sale deed and burden is on the Plaintiff-Opposite Party to discharge the same.

¶37

Contention raised by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner that by making an attempt to impound the document, the Plaintiff-Opposite Party is trying to play fraud on the Court cannot be accepted at this stage, as it is yet to be presented for admission and such an allegation has to be proved on the basis of pleadings and materials available on record. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner has no application to the case at hand, as this Court is considering the veracity of the order of learned trial Court in directing to impound the unregistered sale deed dated 4^th August, 1952. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-3, it is apparent that learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter has categorically held that by impounding a document, recital of the document are not proved. On the other hand, such document can be impounded subject to its proof. It further held that the Defendant-Petitioner has the scope to object to the admission and proof of the document. Further, the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to impound the document in view of provisions under Sections 31 to 33 of the Stamp Act is not sustainable, in view of provision under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C. As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶38