Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1363 (ORI)

Chandrama Mishra v. Kishore Chandra Mishra

2017-11-27

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Baidyanath Sarangi had two sons, namely, Basudev and Bamadev, plaintiff no.2. While they were living jointly, they sold a piece of ancestral land. Out of the sale proceeds, Basudev purchased the suit land. The suit property was acquired out of joint family fund. Plaintiff no.2 had share over it. Basudev, after death of his wife, adopted Chandrama, plaintiff no.1, daughter of Bamadev as his daughter about 16 years back and gave her marriage with Ramesh Chandra Mishra. After marriage, plaintiff no.1 and her husband resided in the house of Basudev. While the matter stood thus, Basudev fell ill. Defendant no.2, who is the son of maternal uncle of Basudev, fraudulently got a registered deed of gift on 16.8.78 in favour of his son, Kishore Chandra Mishra, defendant no.1. The gift deed had not been acted upon. After death of Basudev, plaintiff no.1 enjoyed the suit property and used to pay rent. It was further pleaded that in case the adoption of plaintiff no.1 as the daughter of Basudev is not accepted, plaintiff no.2 being the only survivor is entitled to the suit property. The gift deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra. 3. Both the defendants filed written statements separately. While admitting that the suit property belonged to Basudev, they disputed the mode of its acquisition. They denied that the suit property was acquired out of joint family fund. Basudev was residing with Banchhanidi Mishra, his maternal uncle, and looking after his agricultural land. Out of love and affection, Banchhanidhi executed a gift deed in favour of Basudev. Basudev was in possession of the suit property. He gifted the same in favour of defendant no.1 by means of a gift deed on 16.8.78. Plaintiff no.1 was not the adopted daughter of Basudev. Plaintiff no.1 and her husband are residing over a portion of the suit house as tenant. The gift deed having been executed by Basudev and the same having been accepted by defendant no.1, it is not open for the defendants to challenge the same. 4. Plaintiff no.1 was not the adopted daughter of Basudev. Plaintiff no.1 and her husband are residing over a portion of the suit house as tenant. The gift deed having been executed by Basudev and the same having been accepted by defendant no.1, it is not open for the defendants to challenge the same. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Basudev. The statement made by Basudev on 30.1.79 in I.C.C. No.48/78 completely belies the case of adoption advanced by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff no.1 is not the daughter of Basudev. The gift deed was executed by Basudev in favour of defendant no.1. The land was mutated in favour of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is exercising act of ownership over the property. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri in T.A. No.78 of 1985, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground nos. K(a) & (c) of the memorandum of appeal. The same are: “(K)(a) Whether a statement of a deed man made in a criminal proceedings can be accepted as valid evidence before the civil court for determination of adoption. (c) Whether the appellant no.1 can be validly treated as the adopted daughter of late Basudev in absence of any deed of adoption. Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable in absence of any prayer to set aside the registered gift deed executed by Basudeb Sarangi on 16.3.1978 in favour of Kishore Chandra Mishra, defendant no.1 ?” 6. Heard Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Y. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of Basudev and Bamadev. Basudev had no issue. After death of wife of Basudev, he adopted Chandrama, daughter of Bamadev Sarangi, plaintiff no.2. The alleged gift deed was an outcome of fraud. The same had not been acted upon. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. Basudev had no issue. After death of wife of Basudev, he adopted Chandrama, daughter of Bamadev Sarangi, plaintiff no.2. The alleged gift deed was an outcome of fraud. The same had not been acted upon. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. The courts below committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in relying upon the statement made by Basudev in I.C.C. No. 48/78. The statement made in the deposition is not binding on the civil court. When a plea of adoption is taken, it is incumbent upon the court to scan the evidence and pleadings and to arrive at a conclusion. But the same has been given a go bye. There is ample material on record that Chandrama is the adopted daughter of Basudev. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submitted that Basudev was the owner of the suit property. He gifted the same in favour of defendant no.1. The gift deed had been acted upon. Plaintiff no.1 is not the adopted daughter of Basudev. There is no pleading with regard to date and year of adoption. Pleading lacks material fact with regard to giving and taking ceremony. Both the courts concurrently held that the suit property is the exclusive property of Basudev and Chandrama was the adopted daughter of Basudev. 9. The apex Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs. Mt. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504 , held that as an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. 10. In Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Smt. Rup Kanwar, AIR 1961 SC 1378 , the apex Court held that an adoption may be valid under the Hindu law, there must be a formal ceremony of giving and taking. It further held that although no particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, the law requires that the natural parent should hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature of the ceremony varying according to the circumstances. 11. It further held that although no particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, the law requires that the natural parent should hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature of the ceremony varying according to the circumstances. 11. In Birabara Rout and others vs. Dullabh Rout and others, Vol.38(1972) CLT 161, the question arose whether certified copy of deposition of a person in a Mutation case was admissible. This Court held that an admission by itself is substantive evidence in view of Secs.17 and 20 of the Evidence Act, though it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. An admission duly proved is admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making it appears in the witness box or not and whether such party appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case the party made a statement contrary to the admission. The purpose of contradicting the witness under Sec.145 of the Evidence Act is quite different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and only serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. Weight to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence. 12. There is also no pleading with regard to giving and taking ceremony. In the complaint case, Basudev deposed that Chandrama is not his adopted daughter. The courts below have not placed sole reliance on the same. Rather on an anatomy of pleadings and evidence both the courts concurrently held that plaintiff no.1 is not the adopted daughter of Basudev. It further held that Basudev was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. He executed a gift deed in favour of defendant no.1. The gift deed has been acted upon. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. Further there is no prayer in the suit to set aside the gift deed. In State of Kerala vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 S.C. 906 , the apex Court held that even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Further there is no prayer in the suit to set aside the gift deed. In State of Kerala vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 S.C. 906 , the apex Court held that even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word "void" is not determinative of its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise. The apex Court went in depth into the jurisprudential concept of ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ and held thus : “7. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, (Reissue) Volume 1(1) in paragraph 26, page 31, it is stated, thus:- "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that there are no degrees of nullity. Even though such an act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction, however, it subsists and remains fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until its validity is challenged, its legality is preserved." The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.