[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Madan Mohan Sahu vs Susila Sahu on 26 August, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
S.A. No.295 of 1991
In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.
***
Madan Mohan Sahu
… Appellant.
-VERSUS-
Susila Sahu ... Respondent.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. S. Mohanta, Advocate.
On behalf of
Mr. N.P. Pattnaik, Adv.
For the Respondents : None.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 28.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.08.2025
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 1 of 24
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.–
1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing
Judgment.
2. The appellant in this 2nd Appeal was the defendant before
the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 and
respondent before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal
vide T.A. No.2 of 1989.
The respondent in this 2nd Appeal was the plaintiff before
the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 and
appellant before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide
T.A. No.2 of 1989.
3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd Appeal)
vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 was a suit for partition against the
defendant (appellant in this 2nd Appeal).
As per the case of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd
Appeal) before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.
No.1 of 1987, she (plaintiff) and the defendant are the
descendants of their common ancestor Sankarsana Sahu.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 2 of 24
Their common ancestor Sankarsana Sahu had 3 wives.
Biranchi was the son of Sankarsana Sahu through his first
wife. The 2nd wife of Sankarsana Sahu died issueless. The
plaintiff is the only daughter of the 3rd wife of Sankarsana
Sahu. Panchaphula was the third wife of Sankarsana Sahu.
The son of Sankarsana Sahu through his first wife i.e.
Biranchi died in the year 1979 leaving behind the defendant
i.e. Madan Mohan Sahu as his only successor.
The properties described in Schedule “B”, “C” & “D” are
the suit properties.
The “B” and “C” schedule suit properties corresponds to
properties covered under Sabik Khata No.73 & 104/2. The
properties covered under Sabik Khata No.73 & 104/2 being
the ancestral properties of Sankarsana Sahu, the said
properties had fallen in the share of Sankarsan Sahu. As
such, Sankarsan Sahu was the owner of “B” and “C” schedule
suit properties. The “D” schedule suit properties were the self-
acquired properties of Sankarsan Sahu.
The son of Sankarsana Sahu i.e. Biranchi Sahu (father of
the defendant) had married in village Panmura in Bargarh
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 3 of 24
district and was residing in his inlaws house at Panmura with
his wife and son i.e. defendant. For which, the plaintiff, her
husband and her mother were looking after the comforts of
Sankarsana Sahu staying with him. The plaintiff and her
husband were also looking after the cultivation of the
properties of Sankarsana Sahu i.e. suit properties. Because,
Sankarsana Sahu being old was not physically fit to look after
the properties. Out of love and affection, Sankarsana gifted
Ac.0.65 dec. of land out of Khata No.73 in favour of plaintiff
through registered gift deed in the year 1979. The mother of
plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula (third wife of Sankarsana) died in
the year, 1982. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff,
the defendant chalked out a plan for recording the suit
properties described in Schedule “B” & “C” illegally in his
name exclusively correcting the same from the name of his
grandfather Sankarsana Sahu to his name even during the life
time of his grandfather Sankarsana Sahu and plaintiff. So,
without the knowledge of the plaintiff and her father
Sankarsana Sahu, the defendant managed to record the suit
properties descibred in Schedule “B” & “C” illegally in his
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 4 of 24
name correcting the same from the name of Sankarsana Sahu
to his name through Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and
443/1981 even in the absence of any deed of transfer of the
said suit properties by Sankarsana Sahu in his favour.
Thereafter, Sankarsana Sahu died in the year, 1984. After the
death of Sankarsana Sahu, the defendant expressed his
desire to possess the suit properties described in Schedule “B”
& “C” exclusively debarring the plaintiff from possessing the
same on the strength of the R.o.Rs. through mutation created
illegally in his name exclusively on the basis of Mutation Case
Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981. On the strength of the said
illegal R.o.Rs of “B” & “C” Schedule Properties through
Mutation Case Nos.442 & 443 of 1981, he (defendant) claimed
his exclusive ownership over the suit properties. For which,
without getting any way, the plaintiff requested defendant for
partition of her half share from the suit properties, to which,
he (defendant) did not agree. Therefore, without getting any
way, she (plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 against
the defendant praying for partition of her half share from the
suit properties.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 5 of 24
4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide
T.S. No.1 of 1987, the defendant contested the same taking
his stands specifically that, the plaintiff is not the daughter of
Sankarsana Sahu through his third wife. Because,
Sankarsana Sahu had married only one wife known as
Urmila, through whom Biranchi (father of the defendant ) was
born. Biranchi died in the year 1947. The mother of the
plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula had married to one Ekadasi Sahu of
Kharmal and she has other issues including the plaintiff. The
name of the father of Sankarsana Sahu was Pitabas Sahu.
Pitabas Sahu died leaving behind his three sons i.e.
Sankarsana Sahu, Dhobei Sahu and Shyamsundar Sahu. He
(defendant) is the only successor of Sankarsana. The plaintiff
is not the successor of Sankarsana Sahu. For which, the
plaintiff has no interest in the suit properties. Therefore, the
suit for partition filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit
properties is not maintainable under law. He (defendant) had
never persuaded or misrepresented Sankarsana Sahu for
recording of the suit properties in his name from his name.
Before mutation of the suit properties to his name,
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 6 of 24
Sankarsana Sahu was in a fit state of mind. The mother of the
plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula was the Sali (Sister-in-law) of Dhobei
Sahu. Dhobei Sahu was the brother of Sankarsana Sahu.
During course of coming to the house of Dhobei Sahu, as his
sister-in-law, Panchaphula developed intimacy with
Sankarsana Sahu. Due to such relationship, Panchaphula
eloped from her husband’s house with a small baby i.e.
plaintiff in the year, 1994 with Sankarsana Sahu and started
living with Sankarsana Sahu. In order to keep the prestige of
Sankarsana Sahu, out of excess love, he (Sankarsana Sahu)
was calling plaintiff as his “daughter” and he (Sankarsana
Sahu) was giving her (plaintiff) fatherly affection since her
babyhood and also brought up her (plaintiff) and gave her in
marriage in the year, 1953 at village Talapadar. As such, the
plaintiff is not the daughter and successor of Sankarsana
Sahu, but she is the daughter of one Ekadasi Sahu. For
which, the plaintiff has no interest in the suit properties. So,
the suit for partition filed by her (plaintiff) is liable to be
dismissed.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 7 of 24
5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in
controversies between the parties, altogether 8 numbers of
issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.
No.1 of 1987 and the said issues are:
ISSUES
1. Is the suit maintainable?
2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file this suit?
3. Is the suit barred by time?
4. Whether Panchaphula was the married wife of Sankarsana
and plaintiff was born through them?
5. Whether the properties gifted to the plaintiff and the
defendant by Sankarsana in different times were valid and those
properties are liable to be excluded from partition?
6. Whether all properties of the family have been brought to
record for partition?
7. Whether plaintiff have got any right, title and interest over
the suit properties and entitled to the share as claimed?
8. To what other reliefs?
6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief i.e. partition
sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant, she (plaintiff)
examined 5 witnesses from her side including her as P.W.1
and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 7 on her behalf.
On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the
plaintiff, the defendant examined 3 witnesses on his behalf
including him as D.W.1 and exhibited several documents vide
from his side vide Exts.A to Z/13.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 8 of 24
7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the
materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the
Trial Court answered issue Nos.2,3,4,5 & 7 in favour of the
plaintiff, but whereas answered issue Nos.1,6 & 8 against the
plaintiff and basing upon the findings and observations made
by the learned Trial Court in issue Nos.1,6 & 8 against the
plaintiff, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 on contest as per its Judgment
& Decree dated 23.12.1988 & 07.01.1989 respectively
assigning the reasons that,
“though the plaintiff has been able to establish
herself as the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu and
she has share in the suit properties, but when the
plaintiff has not brought all the joint properties into
the common hotspot for partition, then, the suit for
partition filed by the plaintiff is bad for partial
partition. So, on that ground, the suit for partition
filed by the plaintiff is dismissed on contest.”
8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and
Decree of the dismissal of the suit vide T.S No.1 of 1987 of the
plaintiff passed by the learned Trial Court, she (plaintiff)
challenged the same preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 9 of 24
No.2/1989 being the appellant against the defendant
arraying him (defendant) as respondent.
9. After hearing from the both the sides, the learned First
Appellate Court allowed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.2/1989
filed by the plaintiff and set aside the Judgment & Decree of
the dismissal of the suit vide T.S. No.1/1987 passed by the
learned Trial Court as per its Judgment & Decree dated
28.08.1991 & 21.09.1991 respectively assigning the reasons
that,
“due to non-challenge to the findings and observations
made by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff in
issue Nos.2,3,4,5 & 7 by the defendant, it is established that,
the plaintiff is the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu through his
third wife Panchaphula and defendant is the grandson of
Sankarsana Sahu being the son of his son Biranchi Sahu and
as such, the plaintiff and defendant both are the successors of
Sankarsana Sahu. When it is the own case of the defendant as
per his pleadings that, Sankarsana Sahu died after 1981 i.e.
after initiation of the Mutation Case vide Mutation Case
No.442/1981 & 443/1981 by the defendant and the “B” & “C”
schedule suit properties were the ancestral properties of
Sankarsana and when it is established that, the plaintiff and
defendant both are the successors of Sankarsana Sahu, then,
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 10 of 24
as per notional partition according to Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share
and the defendant is entitled for 3/4th share in the Schedule “B”
& “C” suit properties and accordingly, the learned First
Appellate Court decreed the suit vide T.S. No.1/1987 of the
plaintiff entitling her (plaintiff) to get 1/4th share from the “B” &
“C” Schedule suit properties and entitling the defendant to get
3/4th share from the “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties
clarifying that, the “D” Schedule suit properties are not liable for
partition as the said properties were the self-acquired
properties of Sankarsana Sahu, to which, Sankarsana Sahu
has transferred through different gift deeds during his life
time.”
10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and
Decree dated 28.08.1991 & 21.09.1991 respectively passed by
the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No.2/1989 in setting
aside the Judgment & Decree of the dismissal of the suit vide
T.S. No.1/1987 passed by the learned Trial Court, he
(defendant) challenged the same preferring this 2nd Appeal
being the appellant against the plaintiff arraying her (plaintiff)
as respondent.
11. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the
following substantial questions of law i.e.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 11 of 24
I. When the suit properties described
in Schedule “B” & “C” were mutated in the
name of the defendant exclusively as per
orders passed in Mutation Case
Nos.442/1981 & 443/1981 and when the
separate R.o.Rs vide Khata Nos.105/66 and
105/67 were prepared through correction
from Khata Nos.73 & 104/2 i.e. from the
name of Sankarsana Sahu and when order
passed in Mutation Case No.442/1981 and
443/1981 have not been vitiated/set aside
and when there is no material in record to
show, the said R.o.Rs vide Khata No.105/66
and 105/67 were prepared in the name of
defendant through misrepresentation, then,
whether, the learned First Appellate Court
was justified under law to hold that, the “B”
& “C” schedule suit properties are the joint
properties of the plaintiff and defendant and
the same is liable for partition?
2. whether the findings and
observations made by the learned First
Appellate Court holding that, the gift deed
vie Ext.C executed by Sankarsana in favour
of the plaintiff is valid?
12. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
appellant (defendant) only, as none participated from the side
of the respondent (plaintiff) in the hearing of this 2nd Appeal.
13. When the aforesaid two formulated substantial questions
of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each other
according to the findings and observations made by the
learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in their
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 12 of 24
respective Judgments & Decrees on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence of the parties, then, both the substantial
questions of law are taken up together analogously for their
discussions hereunder:
The findings and observations made by the learned Trial
Court in its Judgment & Decree in issue No.4 i.e., the plaintiff
is the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu through his third wife
Panchaphula has already been reached in its finality, because,
the defendant has not challenged the said findings made by
the learned Trial Court in issue No.4 either by filing an appeal
or by filing any cross objection in the 1st Appeal vide T.A.
No.02 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff.
When, the above findings given by the learned Trial
Court in issue No.4 has already been reached in its finality
between the parties due to non-challenge to the same by the
defendant, then, at this juncture, it is established lawfully
that, the plaintiff (respondent) is the daughter of Sankarsan
Sahu and the defendant (appellant) is the grandson of
Sankarsan Sahu.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 13 of 24
It has also been established according to pleadings and
evidence of the parties on the basis of concurrent findings on
facts by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate
Court after appreciation of pleadings and evidence of the
parties that, “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties were the
ancestral properties of ancestor of the parties i.e. Sankarsana
Sahu and the said Sankarsana Sahu expired in the year
1984 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as his
successors.
For which, after the death of Sankarsana Sahu, the “B”
& “C” Schedule suit properties left by Sankarsana Sahu,
devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant simultaneously, as
father of the defendant i.e. Biranchi Sahu (son of Sankarsan
Sahu) and mother of the plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula Sahu (wife
of Sankarsan Sahu) have expired.
14. Now, the question arises,
whether the recording of the suit properties described in
“B” & “C” Schedule of the plaint in the name of the defendant
after its mutation vide Khata Nos.105/66 & 105/67
exclusively on the basis of orders passed in Mutation Case
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 14 of 24
Nos.442/1981 and 443 of 1981 correcting the same from the
name of Sankarsan Sahu to his name during the lifetime of
Sankarsana Sahu without any deed of conveyance in favour of
the defendant and without the consent of Sankarsana Sahu
shall debar/exclude/preclude the plaintiff from claiming
partition of her legitimate share from the “B” & “C” Schedule
suit properties by filing the suit for partition vide T.S. No.1 of
1987?
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In a case between Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others reported in 2021 (4) CCC 147 (S.C) (para No.5) that,
mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour
of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only
for the fiscal purpose.
(II) In a case between Mukund Vs. Sulakshna Bokare & Others
reported in 2018 (1) Civ.C.C (D.B.) (MP) 269 (Para No.23) that,
simply, mutation of name of defendant in revenue record is not
sufficient to presume the ouster of plaintiff. As, the plaintiff is the
co-owner of the defendant.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 15 of 24
(III) 1975 (1) CWR 335: that, mutation entries should not be expectedto be determined jointness or separation of properties.
(IV) In a case between Chandrashekhar Rai Vs. Prabhu Nandan
Kunwar reported in 2015 (1) CCC 651 (Patna) (para No.6) that,
any entry in the record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes
rights nor does an omission of entry affects the rights of the
parties.
(V) In a case between Raghunath Prusty & Others Vs. Raghunath
Baliarsingh reported in 1993 (I) OLR 505 (para No.8) that,
Record of Right–Earlier record of right indicate that, the
disputed property was joint property–In absence of proof as to
how it came to the hands of one co-sharer, exclusive recording in
the subsequent record of rights will not wipe off the interest of
other co-sharers.
(VI) In a case between Narayan Joshi & Another Vs. Smt. Pramila
Panda reported in 2004 (1) CLR 169 (Para No.8) that, when
property inherited by widow and daughter, but only recorded in
the name of widow, such recording does not extinguishes right,
title, interest of the daughter.
(VII) In a case between Maheswar Bagha & Others Vs. Baikuntha
Bagha reported in 2018 (1) OJR 596 that, joint family propertyshould not be mutated to the name of one, unless there is partition
by meets and bounds.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 16 of 24
15. Here in this suit Appeal at hand, when it is established
that, after the death of Sankarsana Sahu, the suit properties
described in Schedule “B” & “C” of the plaint devolved upon
the plaintiff and defendant simultaneously, then, at this
juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the recording of the suit
properties exclusively under Khata Nos.105/66 and 105/67
in the name of the defendant through the orders passed in
Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981 omitting the
name of the plaintiff therefrom the same cannot wipe out the
interest of the plaintiff in the said suit properties. For which,
in other words, as per law, it is held that, even though, the
suit properties described in Schedule “B” & “C” of the plaint
have been recorded in the name of the defendant exclusively
through Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981, still
then, as per law, the said “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties
are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and
defendant and the same are liable for partition between them
(plaintiff and defendant).
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 17 of 24
It is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial
Court and learned First Appellate Court in their respective
Judgments & Decrees that, Sankarsana Sahu died after 1981
leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as his successors
and as such, Sankarsana Sahu has died after coming into
force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
It is the findings of the learned First Appellate
Court in its Judgment & Decree that, according to notional
partition on the basis of the provisions of law envisaged in
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff
being the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get 1/4th
share and the defendant being the son’s son of Sankarsana
Sahu is entitled to get 3/4th share in the “B” & “C” Schedule
suit properties.
The aforesaid findings and observations made
above by the learned First Appellate Court in its Judgment &
Decree that, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share and the
defendant is entitled to get 3/4th share cannot be sustainable
under law in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the
ratio of the 3 Judges Bench Decision of the Apex Court
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 18 of 24
between Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others
decided on 11.08.2020 that,
the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act (as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005)
confers status of coparcener on the daughters born before or
after amendment in the same manner as the sons with same
rights and liabilities. So, the daughters would step into the
coparcener as that of sons by taking birth. Therefore, amended
provisions of Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as
amended vide Amendment Act, 2005 provides equal right to
daughter with that of the son in the properties having its
retrospective affect and as such, the purpose behind the
amendment in 2005 is to give equal right of inheritance to the
sons and daughters of a coparcener by virtue of birth.
So, in view of the above propositions of law clarified by
the Apex Court in the ratio of the above decision, the
legitimate shares of the plaintiff and defendant in the suit
properties described in Schedule “B” & “C” is equal as per law.
Because, the plaintiff being the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu
is entitled to get half share and the defendant being the son’s
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 19 of 24
son of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get half share in the “B”
& “C” Schedule suit properties, but, the learned First
Appellate Court has not distributed (carved out) the share of
the plaintiff and defendant in the “B” & “C” schedule suit
properties according to law. For which, the allotment of shares
made by the learned First Appellate Court between the
plaintiff and defendant in respect of “B” & “C” Schedule suit
properties is not in conformity with the law for the reasons
assigned above.
Therefore, there is necessity under law for making
interference with the same concerning the allotment of shares
in respect of the “B” & “C” schedule suit properties between
the plaintiff and defendant made by the learned 1st Appellate
Court in its Judgment and Decree through this 2nd Appeal
filed by the defendant .
Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, in
a suit for partition like the suit at hand vide T.S .No.1 of 1987,
the status of all the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant are
same and equal.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 20 of 24
So, as per law, in a partition suit like this suit at
hand, both the plaintiff and defendant can be treated as
plaintiff. For which, there is no impediment under law for
distribution/allotment of lawful shares between the plaintiff
and defendant in this 2nd Appeal, even though, this 2nd
Appeal has been filed by the defendant only.
It is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial
Court and learned First Appellate Court that, the properties
described in Schedule “D” of the plaint were the self-acquired
properties of Sankarsana Sahu and during his life time, he
(Sankarsana Sahu) has transferred the same by way of gift,
for which, the said “D” schedule properties are not liable for
partition between the plaintiff and defendant.
The above concurrent findings of the learned Trial
Court and learned First Appellate Court in respect of the “D”
schedule properties of the plaint are not unreasonable. For
which, the question of interfering with such particular
findings of both the Courts in respect of “D” schedule suit
properties are not interferable in this 2nd Appeal.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 21 of 24
16. This 2nd Appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition.
When it is the established propositions of law as clarified
above, in a suit for partition, the status of all the parties in the
suit are as good as plaintiff and if the suit for partition is
allowed, then, it is the duty of the Court, to distribute the
properties between the parties lawfully according to their
entitlements therein as per law.
For which, by applying the above settled
propositions of law and interfering with the findings of the
learned First Appellate Court in respect of the distribution of
shares between the parties in respect of “B” & “C” Schedule
suit properties as per the discussions and observations made
above, it is held that, though this 2nd Appeal filed by the
defendant cannot be allowed for the acceptance of his claim
for making interference with the Judgment and Decree passed
by the learned 1st Appellate Court in order to non-suit the
plaintiff from her claim for partition, but there is justification
under law for holding in this 2nd Appeal for the reasons
assigned above that, the defendant and plaintiff i.e. the
appellant and respondent in this 2nd Appeal are entitled to get
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 22 of 24
half share each from the “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties,
but, they are not entitled to get 3/4th and 1/4th shares
respectively in the same as per the findings of the learned
First Appellate Court.
So, for the reasons assigned above, this 2nd Appeal
filed by the defendant lacks any merit in his favour. For which,
this 2nd Appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed with the
modification of shares in “B” & “C” schedule properties allotted
by the learned 1st Appellate Court in its Judgment and Decree
as clarified above.
17. Therefore, out of the properties described in Schedule “B”
& “C” of the suit properties, the plaintiff and defendant are
entitled for half share each with the stipulation that, the
alienation made by the parties in the meantime therefrom
shall be adjusted from their respective shares.
The parties i.e. the plaintiff and defendant may amicably
effect the partition of the “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties in
proportion to their respective shares as indicated above within
a period of 3 moths hence, failing which, any of the party may
apply the Trial Court for making the decree final.
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 23 of 24
18. In the final decree proceeding, the Civil Court
Commissioner to be appointed by the Court shall make
division of the suit properties described in Schedule “B” & “C”
of the plaint amongst them (plaintiff & defendant) by allotting
their respective shares in their favour in accordance with the
apportionments made above and while so partitioning, he
shall respect to the possession and convenience of the parties.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
20. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
21. As such, the Judgment of the 2nd Appeal is pronounced.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
26 .08. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak (RK)
Sr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 26-Aug-2025 19:22:55
S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 24 of 24
[ad_2]
Source link