Dibakar Vs Nuduri

Counsel appeared for the parties in both the 2^nd Appeals: For all the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Dey, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. For the State-respondents. None (for the respondent Nos.1 to 4)

¶11

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶12

Page 1 of 19

¶13

P R E S E N T:

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶15

Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶18

1. Since both the 2^nd Appeals have arisen out of an analogous Judgment passed in T.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 1986 in connection with one suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I, then, both the 2^nd Appeals are taken up together analogously for their final adjudication through this common Judgment.

¶19

2. S.A.No.215 of 1987-:

¶20

The appellants and respondent Nos.7 to 9 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 9 before Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.3 to 9 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

¶21

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

¶22

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶23

Page 2 of 19

¶24

The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in this 2^nd Appeal were the

¶25

defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the

¶26

First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

¶27

S.A.No.219 of 1987-:

¶28

The appellants and respondent Nos.7 to 11 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 9 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and appellant Nos.1 and 2 along with respondent Nos.7 to 11 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

¶29

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

¶30

The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

¶31

3. The suit of the plaintiffs i.e. Nuadru @ Prafulla Chandra Mohanta, Padma Charan Mohanta, Laxmidhar Mohanta & Bipati Bewa vide T.S. No.15/1982-I against the defendants

¶32

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶33

Page 3 of 19

¶34

(State of Orissa, S.D.O, Panchpir, Dibakar, Bipin, Niranjan, Duryadhan, Gouri, Pada and Aiban) was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint vide T.S. No.15/1982-I.

¶35

4. According to plaintiffs case, the suit properties vide Plot Nos.697 & 698 originally belong to the predecessors of the defendant Nos.3 to 9, to which, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Haradhan Mohanta had purchased through unregistered sale deeds. As such, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Haradhan Mohanta was the exclusive owner and in possession over suit plot Nos.697 and 698.

¶36

When Haradhan Mohanta was the exclusive owner and in possession over suit plot Nos.697 & 698, a Revenue Misc. Case vide Revenue Misc. Case No.87/1976 was initiated against him by the defendant No.2 (S.D.O Panchpir) in respect of suit plot Nos.697 & 698 illegally and arbitrarily. An order of eviction was also passed in that Revenue Misc. Case No.87/1976 by the defendant No.2 (S.D.O Panchpir) on dated 28.11.1979 for eviction of the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) from the suit plot Nos.697 & 698 and

¶37

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶38

Page 4 of 19

¶39

the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 was directed to pay penalty of Rs.115/- to defendant Nos.3 to 9 for his unauthorized occupation of the suit plot Nos.697 & 698 in contravention to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Regulation 2 of 1956, because, the defendant Nos.3 to 9 belong to Schedule Tribe Community, but the father of the plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs belong to General Caste Community.

¶40

The father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) challenged to the said order dated 28.11.1979 for eviction passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.87/1976 preferring an appeal being the appellant before the A.D.M, Baripada. That appeal was not admitted.

¶41

Subsequent, thereto, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his successors.

¶42

As, the plaintiffs have been possessing the suit properties for more than the statutory period, for which, they (plaintiffs) have perfected their title over the suit properties through adverse possession. Therefore, the proceedings under Regulation-2 of 1956, those were initiated against their father

¶43

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶44

Page 5 of 19

¶45

Haradhan Mohanta in respect of suit plot Nos.697 & 698 are

¶46

illegal, void and inoperative. For which, they (plaintiffs) are not liable to be evicted from the suit properties. Because, the defendant No.2 i.e. S.D.O. Panchpir had initiated Proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956 against their father Haradhan Mohanta arbitrarily having no jurisdiction to initiate the same.

¶47

As the defendant Nos.3 to 9 had/have no right, title and interest in the suit properties and the defendants are not in possession over the same, for which, they (plaintiffs) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I being the plaintiffs against the defendants praying for declaration that, the proceedings, those were initiated against their father Haradhan Mohanta under Regulation2 of 1956 in respect of the suit properties are illegal, void and inoperative and to injunct the defendants for interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and to declare that, they (plaintiffs) have right, title and interest over the suit properties and to confirm their possession on the same along with other reliefs, to

¶48

which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for as per law and equity.

¶49

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶50

Page 6 of 19

¶51

5. The defendant Nos.1,2,7 to 9 did not contest the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I filed by the plaintiffs, for which, they (defendant Nos.1,2,7 to 9) were set ex-parte.

¶52

Whereas, the defendant Nos.3 to 6 contested the suit of

¶53

the plaintiffs taking their stands in their written statement that, they are possessing the suit properties since the time of their predecessors. The suit properties were never sold to the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) by their predecessors at any point of time. Neither the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) nor the plaintiffs had/have possessed the suit properties in any manner at any point of time. The suit of the plaintiffs against them (defendants) is not maintainable under law. The same is barred by limitation. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 6 numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I and the said issues are:

¶55

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶56

Page 7 of 19

¶57

ISSUES

¶58

1. Is there any cause of action?

¶59

2. Is the suit maintainable?

¶60

3. Is the suit barred by law of resjudicata?

¶61

4. Whether Anadi and Goura sold suit plots 697 and 698 to the father of the plaintiffs for consideration and legal necessity?

¶62

5. Whether the alleged sale by Anadi and Goura to the father of the plaintiffs are valid and binding on the defendants?

¶63

6. Whether the plaintiffs acquired a right title or interest over the plot Nos.697 and 698 by way of purchase of adverse possession?

¶64

7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs examined 6 numbers of witnesses from their side including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.6 and relied upon series of documents vide Exts.1 to 12.

¶65

On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiffs, the contesting defendant Nos.3 to 6 examined 1 witness on their behalf i.e. defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and exhibited one document i.e. the certified copy of the order dated 28.11.1979 passed in R.M.C. No.87 of 1976 from their side as Ext.A.

¶66

8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue Nos.1,2 & 3 in full in

¶67

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶68

Page 8 of 19

¶69

favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and

¶70

answered issue Nos.4,5 & 6 in part in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶71

Basing upon the findings and observations made in the issues, the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment & Decree in the suit vide T.S. No.15-1982-I on dated 25.02.1986 and 04.03.1986 respectively and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I in part on contest against defendant Nos.3 to 6 and ex parte against other defendants and directed the plaintiffs to take possession of suit plot No.697 from the defendant Nos.3 and 4 and confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plot No.697 assigning the reasons that, “ the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Haradhan Mohanta has purchased suit plot No.697 from the father of the defendant Nos.3 to 6 i.e. from Anadi and Goura and plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit plot No.697, for which, they have become the lawful owners of suit plot No.697. The initiation of the proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956 by the defendant No.2 (S.D.O Panchpir) against the father of the plaintiffs in respect of suit plot No.697 was illegal. For which, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff and to declare the title of the plaintiffs over suit plot

¶72

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶73

Page 9 of 19

¶74

No.697 and also to declare that, the initiation of the proceedings vide RMC No.87/1976 under Regulation 2 of 1956 against the father of the plaintiffs in respect of suit plot No.697 was unfair, capricious and arbitrary and the order passed in the proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956 against the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Haradhan Mohanta in respect of suit plot No.697 is illegal and contrary to law.”

¶75

9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Part Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.15/1982-I in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the plot No.697, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 challenged the same preferring the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5 of 1986 being the appellants against the plaintiffs arraying them (plaintiffs) as respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also arraying the defendant Nos.1,2, 5 to 9 as respondent Nos.5 to 11.

¶76

The plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the aforesaid part Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court concerning the refusal of their title over suit plot No.698, they (plaintiffs) also challenged the said part Judgment & Decree of the learned Trial Court preferring 1^st Appeal vide T.A.

¶77

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶78

Page 10 of 19

¶79

No.6/1986 being the appellants against the defendants arraying defendants as respondents.

¶80

10. As both the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 1986 filed by the defendants and plaintiffs had arisen out of the same Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I, then, the learned First Appellate Court passed the Judgment of both the 1^st Appeals vide T.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 1986 analogously after hearing from both the sides and as per the analogous Judgment and Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. Nos.5 & 6/1986 on dated 27.06.1987 and 13.07.1987 respectively, the learned 1^st Appellate Court allowed the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.6 of 1986 of the plaintiffs and disallowed the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5 of 1986 of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 on contest as per its Judgment & Decree dated 27.06.1987 and 13.07.1987 respectively and declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over both the suit plots vide plot Nos.697 & 698 entitling them (plaintiffs) to recover possession of suit plot Nos.697 & 698 from the defendant Nos.3 to 6 assigning the

¶81

reasons that,

¶82

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶83

Page 11 of 19

¶84

“the plaintiffs have perfected their title over both the suit

¶85

plots vide suit plot Nos.697 and 698 through their continuous possession for more than 12 years and the order passed by the S.D.O. Panchpir (defendant No.2) in RMC No.87/1976 under Regulation 2 of 1956 for restoration of the suit properties to the defendant Nos.3 to 9 on the ground that, no permission was taken for purchasing the suit properties by the father of the plaintiffs being a man of general caste community from the schedule tribe members i.e. from the predecessors of the defendant Nos.3 to 6 i.e. from Goura and Anadi is void, as the same was not in accordance with the law. For which, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of declaration of their right, title and interest over both the suit plots vide suit plot Nos.697 & 698 and they (plaintiffs) are entitled to recover possession of suit plot Nos.697 & 698 from the defendants.” 11. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid analogous Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.1987 and 13.07.1987 respectively passed by the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No.6/1986 and 5/1986 respectively, the defendant Nos.3

¶86

to 9 challenged the same preferring two separate 2^nd Appeals

¶87

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶88

Page 12 of 19

¶89

vide T.A. No.215 and 219 of 1987 being the appellants against the plaintiffs arraying them (plaintiffs) as respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also arraying the defendant Nos.1 & 2 (State of Orissa and S.D.O. Panchpir) as other respondents.

¶90

12. Both these 2^nd Appeals were admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e.:

¶91

I. Whether the Judgments & Decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court concerning the declaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the suit plot Nos.697 & 698 through adverse possession is sustainable under law?

¶92

2. Whether the plaintiffs being the persons of general caste community are entitled under law to claim title over the suit properties against the schedule tribe persons i.e. against the defendant Nos.3 to 9 through adverse possession?

¶93

3. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a declaration that, the final orders passed in the proceedings in respect of the suit properties in RMC No.87/1976 under Regulation 2 of 1956 by the competent authorities i.e. S.D.O Panchpir (defendant No.2) for restoration of the suit properties in favour of the schedule tribe persons i.e. defendant Nos.3 to 9 on the ground of illegal purchase of the same from the father of the defendant Nos.3 to 6 as illegal and without jurisdiction?

¶94

13. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for

¶95

the appellants (defendant Nos.3 to 9) in both the appeals, and

¶96

the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6,

¶97

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶98

Page 13 of 19

¶99

as none appeared from the side of the respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶100

(plaintiffs) for participating in the hearing of these 2^nd Appeals.

¶101

14. As per the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the above 3 formulated substantial questions of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each other and one among the same cannot be decided effectively leaving the other, for which, in order to have the just decision in both the 2^nd Appeals, all the formulated substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder:

¶102

In order to answer the aforesaid 3 formulated substantial questions of law, I thought it proper to place it on record to the clarified propositions of law on this aspect in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶103

I. In a case between Smt. Champabati Devi Vs. Duryodhan Swain (dead) and After him Ashok Kumar Swain and others reported in 2006 (I) OLR 588 that, if under the Act i.e. The Orissa Schedule Areas of transfer of immovable property (by Schedule Tribes) Regulation 1956, statutory tribunal is created to decide disputes coming within the purview of the said Regulation 2 1956, then, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred and the suit will not lie in the Civil Court to challenge the decision passed by the special tribunal. (Para No.13)

¶104

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶105

Page 14 of 19

¶106

II. In a case between Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Others reported in 2004 (II) OLR (SC) 117 that, a non-tribal can neither prescribe nor acquire title by adverse possession over the property belonging to a tribal, as the same is specifically prohibited by a special law promulgated by the State legislature. (Para No.27)

¶107

III. In a case between Nityananda Nayak Vs. Biswanath Kalo (dead) & Others reported in 2021 (II) CLR 187 that, when an eviction order has been passed under the Regulation 2 of 1956 and possession is given/restored, then, Civil Suit filed in the Civil Court challenging the order passed by the tribunals constituted under the Regulation 2 1956 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, the said Civil Suit is barred and such Civil Suit is not maintainable to challenge the orders passed by the tribunals for eviction and restoration of possession in the proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956.

¶108

15. Here in these matters at hand, when the authorities under Regulation 2 of 1956 i.e. S.D.O, Panchpir (defendant No.2) passed the final order in RMC No.87 of 1976 on dated 28.11.1979 for eviction of the plaintiffs from the plot No.697 & 698 and to restore the possession thereof in favour of the Schedule Tribes person i.e. defendant Nos.3 to 9 and when on implementation of the said final order passed in RMC No.87 of 1976, the possession of both the suit plots vide plot Nos.697

¶109

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶110

Page 15 of 19

¶111

& 698 was restored to the defendant Nos.3 to 9 evicting the plaintiffs therefrom and when the order passed in RMC No.87/1976under Regulation 2 of 1956 by the S.D.O. Panchpir (defendant No.2) has already been confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. A.D.M., Baripada due to nonadmission of appeal of the appellants against the order passed in R.MC. No.87 of 1976 by the S.D.O. Panchpir (defendant No.2) as per the own pleadings of the plaintiffs, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to these matters at hand, it is held that, the orders passed in the Proceedings under Regulation 2 of 1956 in respect of the suit properties against the plaintiffs by the competent authorities under law for the same were neither illegal nor arbitrary. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs to declare that, the defendant No.2 (S.D.O., Panchpir) had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding against them (plaintiffs) under Regulation 2 of 1956 is not entertainable under law.

¶112

Likewise, in view of the propositions of law as clarified above by the Apex Court in the ratio of the decision between

¶113

Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati &

¶114

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶115

Page 16 of 19

¶116

Others reported in 2004 (II) OLR (SC) 117, the plaintiffs being the members of general caste community, they (plaintiffs) are precluded/estopped under law to file the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I against the schedule tribes persons i.e. against the defendant Nos.3 to 9 praying for declaration of their title through adverse possession over the suit properties.

¶117

Because, as per the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court, the plaintiffs being non-tribal can neither perfect nor acquire their title by adverse possession over the properties belonging to the tribals like the defendant Nos.3 to 9 in the suit. Such plea of the plaintiffs is prohibited by Special Law i.e. Regulation 2 of 1956 promulgated by the State being a special nature of statute of the State.

¶118

16. As per the discussions and observations made above, it is held that, the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I against the defendants is not maintainable under law. For which, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief in the suit vide T.S. No.15-1982-I against the defendants.

¶119

Therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I

¶120

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶121

Page 17 of 19

¶122

declaring the title of the plaintiffs over the suit plot No.697 is not sustainable under law.

¶123

Likewise, the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned First Appellate court in allowing the first appeal of the plaintiffs vide T.A. No.6 of 1986 and disallowing the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986 of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶124

For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the Judgments and Decrees passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.15 of 1982-I and 1^st Appellate Court in T.A. No.5 of 1986 and T.A. No.6 of 1986.

¶125

17. Therefore, there is merit in both the 2^nd Appeals filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.3 to 9). The same must succeed.

¶126

18. In result, both the 2^nd Appeals filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.3 to 9) against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 (plaintiffs) are allowed on merit.

¶127

19. The part Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the Judgments and Decrees passed by

¶128

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶129

Page 18 of 19

¶130

the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No.5 of 1986 & in

¶131

T.A. No.6 of 1986 are set aside.

¶132

20. The suit be and the same vide T.S. No.15-1982-I filed by the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 4) is dismissed on contest against the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and ex parte against defendant Nos.1,2 & 7 to 9, but without cost.

¶133

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶134

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 24 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

¶135

Signature Not Verified

¶136

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 26-Sep-2025 18:23:24

¶137

S.A. Nos.215 & 219 of 1994

¶138

Page 19 of 19

Dibakar v. Nuduri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibakar v. Nuduri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratikanta Nath Vs Madhabananda Biswal

M/S.S.N.Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Satyanarayana Rajguru Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Vs Nuduri

Tansukha Rai Agarwal Vs State

Achyuta Vs Lachanan Balaji Deb