In a second appeal, the High Court stayed its hand from interfering with concurrent factual findings of lower courts. Holding that the appellant failed to prove possession over the disputed land, the court dismissed the appeal challenging the decree in a suit for permanent injunction.
The appeal was dismissed. 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 544 of 2003
An appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure.
--------------Gobardhan Karna ...… Appellant
-Versus-
Krupasindhu Khamari and ...… Respondents Others Advocate(s) appeared in this case:_______________________________________________________ For Appellant : M/s. P.V. Ramdas & P.V. Balakrishna For Respondents : Mr. A.R. Dash, Additional Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
7th August, 2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the confirming judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge (FD), Bargarh in Title Appeal No.10/42 of 2001-
2002 on 30.08.2003, followed by decree whereby the
Page 1 of 9
judgment passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Bargarh on 20.03.2001 followed by decree in Title Suit No. 29 of 2000 was confirmed.
in possession of the “B” schedule land. Though the
Page 2 of 9
Defendant No.1 left the spot that day, yet on the next day he started construction of the road stating that the land had been acquired by the State government for such construction. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that he is performing his agricultural operations over “A” schedule land. Apprehending dispossession from the “B” schedule land, over which the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have no manner of right, he filed the suit for permanent injunction.
Page 3 of 9
following issues for determination:-
Whether the are in (3) plaintiff/defendants possession of the suit land?
took note of the documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to hold that the Plaintiff had suppressed the consolidation ROR wherein portion of the suit land was
not recorded either in his name or in the name of Chaturbhuja. Further, the Plaintiff had not filed the consolidation map or Parcha on the plea that the consolidation scheme had not yet been fully concluded. The trial Court, however found that the consolidation
operation had already been concluded with consolidation RORs being distributed. As such, it came to the finding
Page 4 of 9
that the Plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit land. The other issues were accordingly decided against the Plaintiff by holding that the road in question is a portion of the gram panchayat road which runs on NH-6 to village Mahakhanda being used by the villagers of the locality, which the Plaintiff never possessed. On such findings more or less the trial court dismissed the suit.
“(1) Whether the learned Courts below decided the suit for permanent injunction keeping in view the
Page 5 of 9
provisions of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Manifestly the learned Courts below have ignored the said provisions of Section. 38 as such the decree passed by it cannot said to be in accordance with law?
(2) Whether in the facts circumstances of this case the findings relating to possession is based on documentary evidence. The documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence clearly establish plaintiff’s title and possession over the disputed land. The learned courts below are wrong in law in holding that the plaintiff has no title or possession over the disputed site?”
Page 6 of 9
ought to have considered the other evidence adduced by the Plaintiff showing his possession. The 1st Appellate Court also rejected the contentions of the Plaintiff by drawing adverse inference against him for not getting the land demarcated by a Survey knowing Commissioner. According to Mr. Balkrishna, the factum of possession could not have been proved by a Survey knowing Commissioner alone. 12. Mr. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that both the Courts below have found from the evidence on record that the Plaintiff was never in possession over the relevant portion of the suit land. This being a clear question of fact and being based on the evidence on record, there is no need for this Court to interfere in the matter.
Page 7 of 9
sustain the case of the Plaintiff. The area in question was under consolidation operations, which appear to have been concluded at the time of hearing of the suit. The trial court drew adverse inference against the Plaintiff for non-filing of the consolidation ROR and the map. According to Mr. Balkrishna, the Plaintiff could not have filed the said documents as he had preferred appeal, which was then pending but then, this Court fails to understand as to what prevented the Plaintiff to file these documents before the 1st Appellate Court if, they were not available during the trial of the suit. That apart, the Plaintiff could not prove his possession over that portion of the property which was to be used as a road. That apart, it is borne out from the evidence on record that the road in question was not being constructed newly but was an old road already in use by the villagers since long. As has been held by the 1st Appellate Court and according to this Court, rightly so, the Plaintiff could also have got the portion of the suit land demarcated by a Survey knowing Commissioner but he did not do so.
Page 8 of 9
……..…………………..
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge
B.C. Tudu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Aug-2024 19:48:53
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction by ignoring Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act?
Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the lack of title and possession by the appellant are based on documentary evidence?
Gobardhan Karna
Krupasindhu Khamari
Sashikanta Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
