Ananda Ch. Sahu @ Ananda Sahu Vs Manoranjan Patel — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2024)

Ananda Ch. Sahu @ Ananda Sahu Vs Manoranjan Patel — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC meriting its admission. +6 more

Court's answer

No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal requiring an answer, and therefore the appeal does not merit admission and stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

It is undisputed that the suit land originally belonged to Dharanidhar; Shankarlal (son of Jaydev, son of Chakra, brother of Dharanidhar) could not have been the absolute owner in presence of the other branches; if Dharanidhar had a son Hajaru, Hajaru became the absolute owner. There being no document or evidence showing how Shankarlal got title so as to transfer the land, the sale deed projected by the plaintiff as his document of title is of no value in the eye of law.

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession is without foundation: possession derived from Shankarlal cannot, for any length of time, stand adverse to all the real owners, and upon failure to establish Shankarlal's title the plaintiff cannot bank upon the alternative claim of title by adverse possession.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC — concurrent findings of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Padampur (C.S. No.02 of 2011) and the Additional District Judge, Padampur (R.F.A. No.43 of 2014) dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of right, title and interest founded on a sale deed from Shankarlal and on a plea of perfection of title by adverse possession — HELD, no substantial question of law arises: Shankarlal, grandson of Chakra through Jaydev, could not be absolute owner of Dharanidhar's land in presence of the other branches, and with no evidence of how Shankarlal obtained title, the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff is of no value in the eye of law; possession flowing from Shankarlal cannot be adverse to the real owners for any length of time, and failing to establish Shankarlal's title the plaintiff cannot invoke adverse possession, the claim being without foundation. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Issues for consideration

7 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC meriting its admission.¶45
The court held
No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal requiring an answer, and therefore the appeal does not merit admission and stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶53
2.
Proposed question (i): whether the courts below erred in holding Hajaru to be the legal successor without proof under Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and placed the onus on the wrong shoulder.¶32
3.
Proposed question (ii): whether the judgment of the courts below is vitiated for non-consideration of materials evidence extracted in Grounds Nos.(O) and (P).¶36
4.
Proposed question (iii): whether, absent evidence of the defence witnesses (DWS) regarding the relationship between Dharanidhar and Surubali with Hajaru, the courts below were justified in rendering a finding without the aid of section 50 of the Evidence Act.¶37
5.
Proposed question (iv): whether the courts below considered the positive evidence of the PWs as to adverse possession on the record.¶39
The court held
The plaintiff's claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession is without foundation: possession derived from Shankarlal cannot, for any length of time, stand adverse to all the real owners, and upon failure to establish Shankarlal's title the plaintiff cannot bank upon the alternative claim of title by adverse possession.ratio¶48
6.
Proposed question (v): whether any issue was framed that Hajaru is the owner of the land, and whether there is documentary evidence before the courts below on that point.¶40
7.
Proposed question (vi): whether the courts below failed to frame an issue on whether the plaintiff-appellant has right, title and interest over the suit land.¶41
The court held
It is undisputed that the suit land originally belonged to Dharanidhar; Shankarlal (son of Jaydev, son of Chakra, brother of Dharanidhar) could not have been the absolute owner in presence of the other branches; if Dharanidhar had a son Hajaru, Hajaru became the absolute owner. There being no document or evidence showing how Shankarlal got title so as to transfer the land, the sale deed projected by the plaintiff as his document of title is of no value in the eye of law.ratio¶47