Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This review is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd of August, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 280 of 1991.

2. Plaintiff was the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. Case of the plaintiff is that one Giridhari Tripathy executed a Hukumnama on 10-7-1932 in respect of a piece of land measuring Ac. 2.76 decimals authorizing him to reclaim the area and make it fit for cultivation and in return, plaintiff was to possess the same for a period of ten years and appropriate the usufructs. In the year 1935, the plaintiff started cultivation. After death of Giridhari, his son Shyamasundar asked the father of the plaintiff to give up possession of the land in the year 1936. However, the father of the plaintiff did not agree and continued to possess the land till 1960. The plaintiff thereafter continued to remain in possession till 1984 without any interruption. In the year 1984, Kendrapara municipality started construction of houses for the Sweepers' Colony in the suit land. In view of the above, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

3. The Kendrapara municipality filed written-statement stating therein that the land originally belonged to Girdhari Tripathy who had mortgaged the same under a registered mortgage deed dated 10-9-1929 in favour of one Sadhu Charan Behera. Giridhari Tripathy not being in a position to pay back the loan, sold the aforesaid mortgaged land to Sadhu Charan Behera on 13-1-1939 under a registered sale deed. While Sadhu Charan Behera was possessing the said land, he inducted Srimati Bewa, his widow sister-in-law as a sub-tenant in the year 1959. Said Srimati Bewa sold the land to Kendrapara municipality on 31-7-1964 and delivered possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and in appeal, the findings of the trial Court were reversed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

5. In Paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it was held that the Hukumnama which was executed as Ext. 9 is a genuine document. On the basis of the said finding, it was contended by Shri Ray that the Hukumnama having been found to be a genuine document, the necessary conclusion is that the appellant under the Hukumnama was allowed to reclaim the land and make it fit for cultivation and also enjoy the same for a period of ten years. In Paragraph 8 of the judgment, the question of claim of title by Kendrapara municipality was considered. The learned single Judge held that Srimati Bewa being a Sikim tenant was not competent to transfer the land in question and any such transfer by a Sikim tenant is void. The Court further held that there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by this Court in this regard, but there is no bar for a Sikim tenant to transfer his possession. Shri Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, referring to the aforesaid observation, contended that the Court having found that a Sikimi tenancy is not transferable in one breath, could not have observed that there is no bar for a Sikim tenant to transfer his possession in the other breath. The learned Counsel also relied on some decisions of this Court in this regard.

9. Shri Ray, the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner puts much stress on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. According to him, in the impugned judgment the learned single Judge having held that transfer of land by a Sikim tenant is void could not have again held that there is no bar for a Sikim tenant to transfer his possession. The Court was called upon at the time of hearing to look into the evidence and find out as to whether Srimati Bewa was a Sikim tenant or not and whether the transfer of the land by her in favour of Kendrapara municipality is void or not I am afraid, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, this Court while dealing with a review petition cannot re-hear the matter on merit as an appeal. Moreover, the learned single Judge has made a distinction in the impugned judgment by observing that a Sikim tenant though is not competent to transfer any land which obviously means "ownership" can transfer possession. Shri Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, submitted that even if such an interpretation is accepted, the same amounts to wrong appreciation of fact and law and the same cannot be rectified in a review application, as is evident from the observations made by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and moreover, two views being possible on the aforesaid question, the Court cannot entertain a review application to find out as to which view is correct. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no scope for review of the impugned judgment within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court on this score. Though the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties had also argued on the merits of the case, having held that the ground taken does not come within the purview of a review, I have not discussed the case on merits.