Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 592 (ORI)

Gourahari Nayak v. State of Orissa

2017-05-17

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. RATH, J. 1. Plaintiff no.2 is the appellant against an affirming judgment. 2. Appellant along with respondent nos.4 & 5 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.78 of 1995 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land impleading respondents 1, 2 and 3 as defendants. The case of plaintiffs is that C.S. Khata No.109 appertaining to C.S. Plot no.533 measuring an area Ac.192.00 of mouza Padmapur originally recorded in the name of Gokula Chandra Laha, Ex. Proprietor, in the C.S. record of right published in the year 1931. The same was recorded as ‘Anabadi’ land. The kissam was Jhati Jungle. In the year 1945 Gokula Chandra Laha leased out Ac.31.00 of land to one Jogamaya Maity on fixation of annual fair rent for agricultural purposes and delivered possession. Thereafter Jogamaya Maity transferred the same with permission of Ex- Landlord in favour of Jagannath Das, Balaram Das, sons of Sagar Charan Das, Paban Chandra Mandal, Rakhal Chandra Mandal, Srimanta Mandal, sons of Kali Charan Mandal by means of a registered sale deed dated 18.6.1952 and delivered possession. After abolition of estate, the rent roll was submitted before the State in the name of Jagannath Das, Balaram Das, Paban Chandra Mandal, Rakhal Chandra Mandal and Srimanta Mandal. The tenancy ledger was prepared in their names. They were accepted as tenants by the State. Rent paid by them was accepted by the State. On 22.2.1954 Rakhal Mandal, Paban Mandal and Srimanth Mandal sold Ac.5.00 of land out of Ac.31.00 of land to one Gopinath Mandal by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession to him. While the matter stood thus, on 4.2.1966 Gopinath Mandal sold Ac.5.00 of land to one Panchanan Pradhan by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession to him. On 16.2.1979 Panchanan Pradhan sold the said land to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration and delivered possession. The plaintiffs are in peaceful and continuous possession of the land to the knowledge of all including the defendants. The plaintiffs paid the rent to the Government. While the matter stood thus, Jagannath Das and Balaram Das sold Ac.12.40 dec. of land out of Ac.31.00 to one Barendra Manna by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. The plaintiffs are in peaceful and continuous possession of the land to the knowledge of all including the defendants. The plaintiffs paid the rent to the Government. While the matter stood thus, Jagannath Das and Balaram Das sold Ac.12.40 dec. of land out of Ac.31.00 to one Barendra Manna by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. Thereafter Barendra Manna sold Ac.4.00 of land out of Ac.12.40 dec. to Abhimanyu Maity and Mahendra Maity on 16.8.1966 by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. Subsequently Abhimanyu Maity and Mahendra Maity sold Ac.4.00 of land to the plaintiffs on 7.3.1979 by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. Again Barendra Manna sold the rest Ac.8.40 dec. of land to the plaintiffs on 16.2.1979 by means of two registered sale deeds and delivered possession. Therefore the plaintiffs became the exclusive owner in possession of total Ac.17.40 dec. of land out of Ac.31.00 of land towards its eastern side and paying the rent to the Government. In the Hal Settlement they could not take proper steps for which the suit land had been wrongly recorded in favour of the defendants. The record of right of the Hal Settlement is wrong and the same does not confer any title in favour of the defendants. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs covered the suit land into a ‘Gheri’ and started prawn culture over the said portion. The other portion is being cultivated by them. Taking advantage of wrong recording in the Hal R.O.R., the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. With this factual scenario, the suit had been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land was not leased out to Jogamaya Maity. The sale deed executed by Jogamaya Maity is illegal. The subsequent sale deeds executed by the vendors of the plaintiffs are created for the purpose of the suit and without consideration. When Jogamaya Maity had not acquired any title nor tenancy right, his alienation does not convey any right, interest and title to the subsequent purchasers including the plaintiffs. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to Laha Estate. When Jogamaya Maity had not acquired any title nor tenancy right, his alienation does not convey any right, interest and title to the subsequent purchasers including the plaintiffs. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to Laha Estate. After abolition of the said estate, the State Government became the owner of the suit property. The sabik R.O.R. and the Hal R.O.R. had been prepared in favour of Laha Estate and in the name of the State respectively. Thus the State Government has valid right, title and possession over the suit land. The defendants 3(a) to 3(d) were set ex parte. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed six issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined five witnesses and on their behalf, twelve documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined one witness. The learned trial court disbelieved the rent receipts filed by the plaintiffs. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the lease deed said to have been executed in favour of Jogamaya Maity. The subsequent alienation is suspicious. The tenancy ledger was not filed to establish that Jagannath Das and others were tenants under the State. The sabik and hal R.O.R. stand in the name of the State Government. The sale deeds are paper transactions. The same were executed outside the State. The suit land was recorded as ‘Abadjogya Anabadi. The plaintiffs had failed to establish the identification of the suit land out of the bigger plot. Held so, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree before the learned Additional District, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A.No.49 of 2006, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Mr. N.P.Parija, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in absence of tenancy ledger, the rent offered by the plaintiffs could not have been accepted. The plaintiffs filed an application calling for the tenancy ledger, but the same could not be produced on the ground that the records were lost in the super cyclone of the year 1999. The R.I. has admitted in his deposition that he verified the tenancy ledger. Execution of the lease deed is not a sine qua-non for creating agricultural tenancy. The plaintiffs filed an application calling for the tenancy ledger, but the same could not be produced on the ground that the records were lost in the super cyclone of the year 1999. The R.I. has admitted in his deposition that he verified the tenancy ledger. Execution of the lease deed is not a sine qua-non for creating agricultural tenancy. The finding of the courts below that the suit land is not identifiable, is perverse, since the sketch map of the suit land has been given in the schedule of the plaint. He further submitted that the record of right neither creates title nor extinguishes title. Acceptance of rent by ex-intermediary or by the State amounts to creation of tenancy. The same cannot be affected by publication of R.O.R. 6. Admittedly, the suit land originally belonged to exlandlord. The suit land was recorded as Anabadi. The kissam of the land was Jhati Jungle. The assertion of the plaintiffs is that the exlandlord leased out an area Ac.31.00 out of Ac.192.00 of land appertaining to C.S. Plot No.533, C.S. Khata No.109 of mouza Padmapur to Jogamaya Maity in the year 1945 for agricultural purposes. Thereafter Jogamaya Maity alienated the said land in favour of different persons. Several sale transactions were made. The plaintiffs purchased the land from the land owner who was in possession of the same. The plaintiffs became the owner in possession of total Ac.17.40 dec. of land out of Ac.31.00 of land towards its eastern side. In the Hal Settlement the suit land has been recorded as Abadjogya Anabadi. After coming into operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the land vested in the State. There is no evidence on record that the ex-landlord leased out the land in favour of Jogamaya Maity. The learned trial court held that the sale deeds were executed outside the State. The same were mere paper transactions. Jogamaya Maity was not the owner of the land. So, any sale deed executed by him and the subsequent sale deeds will not confer any right, title and interest in favour of the persons. The learned trial court held that there are several scorings in the rent receipts. The same creates a doubt with regard to the said receipts. There is no evidence on record that the ex-landlord has submitted ekpadia in favour of any person. The learned trial court held that there are several scorings in the rent receipts. The same creates a doubt with regard to the said receipts. There is no evidence on record that the ex-landlord has submitted ekpadia in favour of any person. There is also no evidence that tenancy ledger was opened. 7. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law. No costs.