Prahallad Sahoo Vs Janardan Sahoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

R.S.A. NO.334 OF 2022

In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 8^th August 2022 & 19^th August 2022 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Athgarh in R.F.A. No.05 of 2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015 and 07.11.2015 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baramba in Civil Suit (I) No.34 of 2012.

¶4

¶5

Prahallad Sahoo …. Appellant
-versus-
Janardan Sahoo …. Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
================================================
For Appellant - Mr. B. Rath,
Advocate.
- -------------------------
For Respondent

¶6

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH Date of Hearing: 03.01.2024 :: Date of Judgment: 08.01.2024

¶7

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the

¶8

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 8^th August 2022 & 19^th August 2022 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Athgarh in R.F.A. No.05 of 2016.

¶9

Page 1 of 7

¶10

RSA No.334 of 2022

¶11

¶12

The Respondent (Plaintiff) had filed the Civil Suit No.34 of

¶13

2012 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baramba. The suit was for declaration of his right, title, interest, and possession as also permanent injunction as against the Appellant, who had been arraigned as the sole Defendant therein. The suit having been decreed, the present Appellant being the aggrieved Defendant had carried Appeal under section 96 of the Code, it has also been dismissed.

¶14

2 . For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and

¶15

bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

¶16

3. Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant was the owner-in-

¶17

possession of the suit land. He has purchased the land measuring Ac.0.06 decimals under Plot No.379 appertaining the Khata No.214

¶18

in mouza: Sunapal from Pabitra Behera under registered sale-deed No.271 dated 17.02.1998. On getting delivery of possession, the Defendant was possessing the said land of which the suit land is a part. The Defendant has sold the suit land to the Plaintiff for consideration of Rs.6000/- by executing registered sale-deed dated 10.11.1999. Pursuant to the same, the Defendant has delivered

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

RSA No. 334 of 2022

¶21

¶22

possession to the suit land to the Plaintiff, who was in possession of the said land as its owner by virtue of the said purchase. The Defendant after having sold the suit land to the Plaintiff on 10.11.1999 filed a mutation proceeding bearing No.1390 of 2004 seeking mutation of the suit land as also the other lands in his name. The mutation was allowed and that was on the basis of the sale-deed dated 17.02.1998 standing in the name of the Defendant. When the Plaintiff intended to file the mutation case for recording of his purchased land in his name, it came to his knowledge that after sale of the suit land to him, the Defendant has again obtained the mutated record of right of his purchased land including the suit land which he had sold in his name. When it came to the notice of the Plaintiff that the Defendant was trying to sale away the land basing upon the mutation record, the suit came to be filed.

¶23

4 . The Defendant in his written statement while traversing the plaint averments although admitted to have purchased Ac.0.06 decimals of land from Pabitra Behera, but has denied to have executed registered sale-deed 10.11.1999 standing in favour of the Plaintiff. It was also denied that the Plaintiff had been delivered with the possession of the said land covered under the said registered sale-deed dated 10.11.1999. The Defendant asserted to have never

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

RSA No. 334 of 2022

¶26

¶27

sold the suit land to the Plaintiff and therefore, it is said that the Plaintiff had no right, title and possession over the suit land. According to the Defendant, the Mutation Authority had rightly allowed the mutation of the entire land including the suit land in his favour. It is stated that the Plaintiff had not paid the consideration money and therefore, there has been no delivery of possession of the suit land to him.

¶28

5 . On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as nine (9) issues. Coming to issue nos.5 and 7 which concern/s with the claim of the Plaintiff as he has right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by the Defendant in his favour on 10.11.1999, the Trial Court on detail examination of evidence and their analysis has answered those in favour of the Plaintiff. This finding has decided the fate of the suit and accordingly, the suit stood decreed.

¶29

The Defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and

¶30

decree passed by the Trial Court having carried the First Appeal has been unsuccessful.

¶31

7 . Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant) submitted that the findings of the Courts below regarding payment of consideration under Ext.1, the sale-deed standing in the name of the Plaintiff is the

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

RSA No. 334 of 2022

¶34

¶35

outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that the Courts below ought to have held the sale-deed, Ext.1 to be

¶36

void and inoperative, when the Plaintiff has failed to prove the payment of consideration as well as delivery of possession of the suit land. According to him, the Courts below ought to have held that the Plaintiff has never been clothed with the title in respect of the suit land by virtue of the so-called sale-deed, Ext.1. He, therefore, urged

¶37

for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial question of law.

¶38

8 . Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read

¶39

the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint and written statement filed by the parties as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by them.

¶40

9 . The factum of execution and registration of Ext.1 standing in favour of the Plaintiff involving the suit land is not in dispute. The Defendant claims to have not been paid with the consideration and he states to have therefore not delivered the possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff. The evidence on record reveal that the Plaintiff has obtained original sale-deed from the registration office, which

¶41

has been proved in the case as Ext.1. It has been recital in Ext.1 that

¶42

on payment of consideration money, the delivery of possession

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

RSA No. 334 of 2022

¶45

¶46

would be handed over. The recitals of the sale-deed, Ext.1 being considered with the other evidence available on record, more importantly, the evidence of the Defendant, it is not gatherable therefrom that the passing of title of the suit land was dependent on passing of consideration. Moreover, the Plaintiff has adduced evidence with regard to the payment of consideration not only through himself but also by examining one more witness P.W.2. The Courts below have rightly taken the circumstances as to receipt of the original sale-deed by the Plaintiff from the Sub-Registrar Office in its proper perspective in saying that had the consideration money been not paid or had it been intended that the passing of title would be only on payment of consideration, the Plaintiff would not have been authorized by the Defendant to receive the original sale-deed which is the document of title and keep it in his custody. The burden of proof was lying upon the Defendant to show that despite the execution of the sale-deed, the intention was that the passing of title would stand arrested till payment of consideration which he has not received and thus the title has not passed to the hands of the Plaintiff. The pleading in the written statement as also the evidence let in by the Defendant on a plain reading would show that such burden of proof has not at all been discharged. Furthermore, the Defendant

¶47

Page 6 of 7

¶48

RSA No. 334 of 2022

¶49

¶50

has not taken any step to get the sale-deed declared void, when the fact remains that on the above ground of challenge as has been made

¶51

by the Defendant, the sale is not ipso facto void but voidable and it was thus so required to be which claim too as by now is barred by limitation.

¶52

For all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant) cannot be countenanced with to say that there arises any substantial question of law for being answered, meriting admission of this Appeal.

¶53

10. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶54

(D. Dash), Judge.

¶55

Narayan

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2024 15:25:57

¶58

Page 7 of 7