Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/259/2002 of SHYAMA BASKA Vs COLLECTOR, BALASORE – CNR ODHC010004912002 |
| Date of Registration | 09-12-2002 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off (Second appeal dismissed) |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on adverse possession and concurrent findings |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Property Law (Adverse Possession; Tenancy Rights) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that a litigant cannot simultaneously claim title by adverse possession and by documentary title without first renouncing one plea. An extract of the tenancy ledger (Ext.2) does not substitute production of the original register or explanation for non-production and is insufficient to prove occupancy rights. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, including disbelief of the Amalnama Patta and tenancy-ledger extract, are binding in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perverse. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied On |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff claimed occupancy since 1950 under an Amalnama Patta, paid rent before and after intermediary abolition, and relied on tenancy-ledger extract. After RoR recording in State’s name, he sued for declaration and injunction. Trial and first appellate courts disbelieved his documentary proofs and adverse-possession plea, dismissing the suit. Second appeal raised issue-wise findings and evidentiary sufficiency of the tenancy-ledger extract. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Sultan & Ors. v. Kasturi & Ors. (2005), Gafoor Khan v. Sultan Jehan & Ors. (2006), Ambaram v. Ganga Bai (2007), State of Orissa v. Dukishyama Behera (2018) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a litigant cannot maintain dual, inconsistent pleas of title—by adverse possession and by documents—without renouncing one before the other operates.
- Clarifies that an extract of the tenancy ledger alone (Ext.2) is inadmissible to prove occupancy rights unless the original register is produced or a valid explanation is given for its non-production.
- Emphasises strict pleading and proof of the essentials of adverse possession—mere continuous possession is insufficient without clear documentary or testimonial linkage.
- Confirms concurrent findings of fact on document admissibility and creditworthiness are binding in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC in absence of perversity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Disbelief of Key Documents
- Amalnama Patta (Ext.8) shown to be inconsistent in grantors’ identity, land-description (area/Kata), absence of date and unexamined witnesses; both trial and first appellate courts rejected its genuineness.
- Rent receipts (Ext.3 series) lacked plot numbers, defeating any nexus with suit land.
-
Evidentiary Value of Tenancy Ledger Extract
- Ext.2 was merely an information sheet from the original tenancy register; the original register was neither produced nor was any explanation given for non-production—rendering Ext.2 inadmissible to prove tenancy or rent payment.
-
Mutual Inconsistency of Dual Title Pleas
- Citing Sultan and Gafoor Khan, the court held that claiming title by documents and adverse possession concurrently is legally untenable—adverse possession does not begin until documentary claim is renounced.
-
Vesting of Property in State
- Upon abolition of the intermediary system, the land vested in the State free of encumbrances; RoR entries in the State’s name were lawful and not disturbed.
-
Binding Concurrent Findings
- Under Section 100 CPC and Dukishyama Behera, concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts on document authenticity and possession were binding in the second appeal absent perversity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Possession since 1950 under an Amalnama Patta issued by the ex-zamindar and continuous cultivation.
- Paid rents both before and after abolition of intermediary; tenancy ledger opened in his name.
- Challenged erroneous RoR entries in State’s name and sought declaration and injunction.
Respondent (State/Defendant)
- Plaintiff failed to prove Amalnama Patta, Ruffa, tenancy-ledger opening, or rent payment—original documents not produced.
- Ext.2 extract of tenancy ledger insufficient; absence of original register or explanation for its non-production.
- Dual pleas of documentary title and adverse possession are inconsistent and law bars such simultaneous claims.
- Property vested in the State upon abolition of intermediaries; RoR entries valid.
Factual Background
Shyama Baske claimed rights over 3.05 acres in Balasore—originally under a zamindar estate—based on an Amalnama Patta (1950), continuous cultivation, and annual rent payments. After the intermediary system was abolished in 1956–57, he asserted that a tenancy ledger (T.L. No. 1019) was opened in his name and that he continued paying government rent up to 1987–88. When official RoR was recorded in the State’s name, he filed a 1995 suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Both trial and first appellate courts dismissed his suit for failure of proof. In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, he challenged issue-wise findings and the admissibility of the tenancy-ledger extract.
Statutory Analysis
Section 100, CPC (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908): Limits second appeals to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact by two courts below are final unless perverse.
Abolition of Ex-Intermediaries: Upon statutory abolition of the intermediary (zamindari) system (Orissa Estates Vesting Act, 1951), land vested in the State free from encumbrances—RoR entries in State’s name are lawful.
Adverse Possession Principles: Court applied well-settled Limitation Act jurisprudence: essentials of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved; cannot co-exist with documentary title claim.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed—Existing law on adverse possession and second appeals reaffirmed.
Citations
(supra fn.1) R.S.A. No.259 of 2002, Orissa High Court judgment dated 26 August 2025.