Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Due to sad demise of the husband and son in close proximity, it is averred, the plaintiff, a widow, could not take any steps for further development of the disputed land and the same remained in the possession of the tenants. During settlement operation the disputed land was recorded in the name of plaintiffs late husband Suresh Chandra Ray and draft record-of-rights was published. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff and her children were staying away from Cuttack such absentee landlord, it is alleged in the plaint, defendant No. 4-respondent No. 5 (Bijoy Kumar Rout) tried to forcibly collect rent from the tenants in respect of the aforesaid shop-rooms. Refusal by the tenants to pay rent to him enraged him and he resorted to muscle power. By exploding crude bombs, he threatened the life and property of the tenants. It was further alleged in the plaint that several criminal cases had been initiated against defendant No. 4 and his associates on the basis of information lodged by the tenants. In the year 1996 defendant No. 4 again threatened the tenants and coerced them to vacate the shop-rooms which fact was also reported to police by filing FIRs. Finally on 28th June, 1996 defendant No. 4 and his anti-social associates forcibly broke open the aforesaid shop-rooms at night, ransacked the same and took over forcible possession thereof. Thereafter defendant No. 4 executed three agreements in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to sell the suit land to them. On the strength of the said agreements, three collusive suits, being T.S.Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of 1992 were filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for specific performance of contracts against defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 appeared in Court in the said suits and entered into compromise. On the basis of compromise the suits were decreed directing the said defendant to execute the sale deeds in favour of the respective plaintiffs within ten days. Defendant No. 4 chose not to execute the sale deeds in terms of the compromise decrees and the said plaintiffs got the sale deeds executed and registered through Court. It was specifically averred in the plaint that as defendant No. 4-respondent No. 5 had no title to the suit land, the collusive agreements and collusive decrees passed without impleading the plaintiff and other real owners of the property had no legal effect.

After execution of the sale deeds through Court on the basis of the aforesaid collusive decrees, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed applications before the Settlement Commissioner for recording their names in respect of the lands and the Commissioner directed the Settlement Officer to record the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The Settlement Officer also without issuing any notice to the real owners of the lands in question, on the basis of the collusive decrees deleted the name of Suresh Chandra Ray from the draft R.O.R. and recorded the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It is further alleged that after successfully stage-managing the affairs, defendant No. 4-respondent No. 5 on 8th May, 2000 obtained three registered sale deeds from defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the name of his wife, defendant No. 5, who is the appellant in the present appeal.

The recording made by the Settlement authorities on the basis of such decrees was perfectly legal and valid. The allegations of fraud and collusion were stoutly denied. In substance, according to defendant No. 4, without seeking a prayer for declaration that the decrees dated 28th April, 1992 passed in Title Suit Nos. 109, 110, and 111 or 1992 respectively by a competent Civil Court invalid or inoperative, the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff simpliciter was not maintainable.

According to defendant No. 5, the suit land was an intermediary estate of Sarthalal Mishra and others, which had vested in the State in consonance with a notification under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Though the plaintiff claimed that her husband Suresh had purchased the suit land from Chiranjilal who had purchased the same from the ex-intermediary prior to vesting, since after vesting of the estate the land was not settled with Suresh in consonance with the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, no right created in his favour. According to the said defendant, vesting of the estate in the State in consonance with the O.E.A. Act being free from all encumbrances, the right, title and interest of all persons were obliterated on the date of such vesting. Suresh, in consonance with the provisions of the O.E.A.Act, never applied for settlement of the land in his favour. Thus after the vesting no right, title or interest was conferred upon him and so also on the plaintiff. It was further averred that the suit land was never possessed by Suresh, or plaintiff or any of the legal representatives of Suresh and the same was lying vacant and the father of defendant No. 4 had entered into possession thereof. The father of defendant No. 4 and thereafter defendant No. 4 had been exercising their absolute right of ownership and possession of the suit land, without any interruption and therefore by operation of law of limitation defendant No. 4 had perfected his title by adverse possession. Thus he had the right to enter into agreements with defendants 1 to 3 for sale of the said lands. The sale deeds were valid documents and so also the decrees passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of 1992 and the subsequent alienation. Accordingly defendant No. 5 prayed that the suit should be dismissed.