The Orissa High Court holds that concurrent findings on title and possession by trial and first appellate courts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by any evidence. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority on the scope of interference under Section 100 CPC in property-title suits.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/91/1992 of Bhaktaram Barik Vs Uttam Panchali |
| CNR | ODHC010002381992 |
| Date of Registration | 23-04-1992 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Ananda Chandra Behera |
| Court | Orissa High Court (Cuttack) |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Second Appeal), Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The onus to prove title and possession in a suit for declaration and recovery of immovable property lies solely on the plaintiff, independent of the defendant’s case. Concurrent findings on title and possession by courts of first and second instance enjoy finality in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, without evidence, or in blatant disregard of mandatory legal provisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | The court first underscored the principle that in a suit for declaration and possession the plaintiff bears the burden of proof independently. It then examined the first appellate court’s detailed findings—lease reopening, lack of delivery of possession, corroboration by criminal-case orders—and found them neither perverse nor unreasonable. Citing numerous precedents, it held that Section 100 CPC does not permit reappraisal of concurrent factual findings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff claimed title and possession of government waste land leased in 1971 and sought recovery from the defendant who alleged long-standing possession and obtained cancellation proceedings. The trial court decreed for the plaintiff; the first appellate court reversed and dismissed the suit on findings that the plaintiff never acquired possession or title. The plaintiff’s second appeal challenged both the validity of the lease and the appellate findings. |
| Citations | SA No. 91 of 1992; ODHC010002381992; Orissa High Court; 26.08.2025 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| ✔ Precedent Followed | The decision reaffirms that concurrent findings of fact on title and possession cannot be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court emphatically restates that the plaintiff alone bears the onus to prove title and possession in a declaration suit.
- Concurrent factual findings by the trial and first appellate courts enjoy finality; absence of perversity or non-evidence bars interference on appeal.
- Reliance on Section 100 CPC is limited to points of law; factual re-examination is impermissible without exceptional circumstances.
- Lease validity not separately adjudicated absent specific challenge under Section 16 of the OPLE Act—though not directly addressed, the court’s refusal to reopen factual findings signals narrow scope.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court identified the substantive issues—onus to prove title, validity of lease, and correctness of appellate findings.
- It reiterated the settled doctrine that a declaration-and-possession plaintiff must establish title independently, citing City Municipal Council Bhalki, Jagdish Prasad Patel, and Ram Das precedents.
- It reviewed the first appellate court’s factual analysis: reopening of the 1971 lease, Tahasildar’s 1973 order holding no delivery of possession, corroboration by criminal-case findings.
- It found those concurrent findings neither perverse nor unreasonable, invoking Supreme Court authorities (Vudumala Radha, Kondiba Kadam, R. Ramachandran, D. Selvaraj, Mahaveer) on the limited scope of Section 100 CPC.
- Concluded there was no jurisdiction to disturb the factual conclusions; dismissed the second appeal without costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Plaintiff) / 2nd Appeal:
- Contended the validity of the lease was not challenged under Section 16 of the OPLE Act, so civil court lacked jurisdiction to reopen it.
- Argued the first appellate court’s adverse findings on title and possession were factually perverse.
- Relied on State of Orissa vs Bhanu Mali and Babu Verghese.
Respondent (Defendant):
- Did not appear or contest at the second appeal stage.
Factual Background
The plaintiff alleged he held a government waste-land lease since 1971 and was dispossessed by the defendant in 1982. He filed a suit for declaration of title and eviction. The trial court decreed for him; the first appellate court found the lease had been reopened, possession was never delivered, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff’s second appeal challenged both the lease validity and the appellate court’s finding of no title or possession.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908: The court reaffirmed that its scope is confined to points of law; concurrent factual findings by two courts are final unless perverse or without evidence.
- Section 16, Orissa Public Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act: Admitted as a question of law but not expressly examined in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were registered.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established law on the finality of concurrent findings in second appeals.
Citations
- SA/91/1992, Orissa High Court (Cuttack), 26-08-2025
- 1996 (I) OLR 460
- (1999) 3 SCC 422
- 2016 (2) SCC 200
- 2019 (6) SCC 82
- 1998 (9) SCC 719
- 2025 (2) SCC 155
- AIR 1999 SC 2213
- 1963 AIR 302
- AIR 2019 (Mad.) 3
- 2023 (3) Civ.C.C 653 (Raj)