The High Court
Case Details
A.F.R IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.136 of 1992 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Tankadhar Pradhan & Others …. Appellants -versus- Bimala Naik @ Dei (dead) & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate. For Respondents - Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :12.02.2024:: Date of Judgment :04.04.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment. 2. The appellants of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and they were the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988. SA No.136 of 1992 Page 1 of 20 {{ 2 }} The respondents of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and they were the respondents before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988. The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the appellants in this 2nd
Legal Reasoning
Appeal) against the defendants (those are the respondents in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. 3. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 was that, Surendra Pradhan was their common ancestor. Surendra Pradhan died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Manohar Pradhan and Shyama Pradhan. Manohar Pradhan died leaving behind his successors. Shyama Pradhan died leaving behind his wife Kerteki, one daughter and one son i.e. Bimala and Dayanidhi. Bimala is the defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Bimala. The suit properties were originally belonged to Manohar Pradhan and Shayama Pradhan, those are the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit properties were jointly recorded in the name of Manohar Pradhan and the son of Shyama Pradhan i.e. Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. While, Manohar Pradhan and Bakuli @ Dayanidhi SA No.136 of 1992 Page 2 of 20 {{ 3 }} Pradhan were the joint owners over the suit properties Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan sold the suit land described in Schedule “A” of the plaint to Manohar Pradhan by executing and registering a sale deed on dated 02.02.1951. Accordingly, Manohar Pradhan possessed the suit land by purchasing the same from Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. But, that Manohar Pradhan died in the year 1973 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his successors. In the finally published Major Settlement R.o.R, the suit properties were recorded in favour of the plaintiffs, but, the possession of the defendant No.1 was noted in the remarks column thereof, though the defendant No.1 has no right, title, interest and possession in the same. When the defendant No.1 tried to enter into the suit properties and created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, then, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 against the defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties described in schedule “A” of the plaint and to evict the defendants from the same and also to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties along with other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for. SA No.136 of 1992 Page 3 of 20 {{ 4 }} The defendants challenged the suit of the plaintiffs by filing their written statement jointly denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint by taking their stands therein that: Manohar Pradhan and Shyama Pradhan were two brothers. There was no joint family status between them except the joint R.o.R. After the death of Shyama Pradhan in the year 1933, Manohar Pradhan became the care taker of his minor son i.e. Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan. Because, by that time, Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan was aged about 5 to 6 years. Taking the advantage of the minority of Dayanidhi and simplicity of his older widow mother Kerteki, Manohar manipulated to execute the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 in respect of the suit properties from Bakuli @ Dayanidhi Pradhan, which was without the knowledge of the defendants, as the defendants came to know about the said manipulated deed of transfer after receiving the notice of the present suit. Dayanidhi had not executed that sale deed dated 02.02.1951 in respect of the suit properties in favour of Manohar Pradhan (predecessor of the plaintiffs) knowingly, because by that time, Dayanidhi was suffering from mental infirmities and he was roaming from place to place by losing his mental balance. So, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Manohar Prahdan has obtained the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 from Dayanidhi in respect of SA No.136 of 1992 Page 4 of 20 {{ 5 }} the suit properties by taking the advantage of his mental infirmities, for which, the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 is inoperative and infructuous and the same does not confer any title in favour of Manohar Pradhan. The mother of Dayanidhi i.e. Kerteki and as well as his sister i.e. defendant No.1 Bimala had interest in the suit properties. As Dayanidhi has not executed the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 intentionally and knowingly, for which, that sale deed is void and inoperative. Dayanidhi died in the year 1981 leaving behind his wife and son. Dayanidhi had executed a will on dated 01.05.1979 in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit properties and he (Dayanidhi Pradhan) had put them (defendant Nos.1 and 2) into the possession of the suit properties. As the plaintiffs have cleverly manipulated the R.o.R of the suit properties by taking the officials of the settlement authorities into their confidence and as the entry in the R.o.R. of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs is erroneous and as the defendant No.1 has note of possession as Jabardakhalar in respect of the suit properties and as the defendants are in possession over the suit properties, for which, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. That, apart, the defendants have perfected their right, title and interest over the suit properties through adverse possession by possessing the same for more SA No.136 of 1992 Page 5 of 20 {{ 6 }} than statutory period. For which, they (defendants) cannot be injuncted by the plaintiffs from possessing the suit properties. So, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against them (defendants). 4. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 10 numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and the said issues are: ISSUES the alleged transfer deed has been executed with Is the suit maintainable? Whether Whether the sale deed and deed of release are valid in law and 1. 2. consideration and manipulated by Manohar fraudulently? 3. Whether the deed of release dated 18.04.1962 was executed by Dayanidhi while he was suffering from mental infirmities and disorderness? 4. Whether Manohar obtained the deed fraudulently and by undue influence? 5. inoperative and binding on the defendants? 6. defendant Nos.1 and 2 bequeathing his interest in the property? 7. Whether the defendants perfected their right, title and interest over the suit schedule property by possessing it for over the statutory period? Can they be evicted from it? 8. 9. 10. Is the suit under-valued? Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to file the suit? To what relief, the plaintiffs entitled to? Whether Dayanidhi executed a will dated 01.05.1979 in favour of 5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants, during the trial of the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 before the trial court, the plaintiffs examined altogether 3 numbers of witnesses including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and they SA No.136 of 1992 Page 6 of 20 {{ 7 }} (plaintiffs) relied upon series of documents vide Exts.1 to 5 on their behalf. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendants examined 4 numbers of witnesses including the defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and relied upon the document vide Ext.A from their side. 6. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered issue numbers 1 to 5 and 9 and 10 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, as issue No.8 was not pressed. Basing upon the findings and observations made by the trial court in the issue Nos.1 to 5 and 9 and 10 against the plaintiffs, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on contest against the defendants without cost as per its Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.1987 and 02.12.1987 respectively assigning the reasons that, as the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 vide Ext.1 in respect of the suit properties was executed by Dayanidhi, when he was aged about 22 years during his bachelorhood, when the Said Dayanidhi had no legal necessity for selling the same and when the scribe of the deed vide Ext.1 has not been examined, for which, that deed vide Ext.1 dated 02.02.1951 is a fabricated document without consideration and the same has not been proved in accordance with the SA No.136 of 1992 Page 7 of 20 {{ 8 }} law. Likewise, the due and proper execution of that Ext.1 by Dayanidhi in favour of Manohara has also not been proved. Because, that deed vide Ext.1 was executed by Dayanidhi in favour of Manohara while he was not in a sound mental condition. For which, that document vide Ext.1 is held to be a fabricated document and as such the document vide Ext.1 is not a genuine document and the same is not binding on the defendants. For which, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the decree of declaration of title over the suit properties described in schedule “A” of the plaint. 7. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 passed by the Trial Court on dated 23.11.1987 and 02.12.1987 respectively, the plaintiffs challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988 being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. After hearing from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.31 of 1985 concurring/accepting the findings and observations made by the trial court and dismissed the 1st Appeal of the plaintiffs vide T.A. No.19 of 1988 on contest against the respondents SA No.136 of 1992 Page 8 of 20 {{ 9 }} (defendants) as per its Judgment and Decree on 29.02.1992 and 12.03.1992 respectively. 8. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1988 of the plaintiffs passed on dated 29.02.1992 and 12.03.1992 respectively, they (plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e. Whether the conclusion of the 1st Appellate Court in the Judgment and Decree of T.A. No.19 of 1988, that Ext.1 is not a genuine document can at all be sustained, since it has not been established that fraud or undue influence was practised on Dayanidhi who had executed the sale deed after attaining majority? 9.
Legal Reasoning
I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 10. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, Ext.1 i.e. the sale deed was executed on dated 02.02.1951, while the vendor of that sale deed i.e. Dayanidhi was 22 years in age. Shyama Pradhan died leaving behind his widow wife Kerteki, one daughter Bimala (defendant No.1) and one son i.e. Dayanidhi. Accordingly, Kerteki, Bimala and Dayanidhi were the successors of Shyama Pradhan. The sale deed dated 02.02.1951 vide SA No.136 of 1992 Page 9 of 20 {{ 10 }} Ext.1 has been executed by Dayanidhi in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Pradhan for selling the suit properties. In that sale deed vide Ext.1, the vendor of Manohara Pradhan i.e. Dayanidhi Pradhan has signed in Odia as a vendor of the same. Though, it has been alleged by the defendants against the plaintiffs that, the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Pradhan has managed to execute that sale deed dated 02.02.1951 vide Ext.1 in respect of the suit properties from Dayanidhi Pradhan by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, but the defendants have not at all pleaded the particulars of alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, those were allegedly practised by Manohara Pradhan specifically in their written statement. The allegations of the defendants in respect of the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence in their written statement are general in nature. It is the settled propositions of law that, allegations of fraud, misrepresentations and undue influence in the pleadings and evidence must be clear, definite and specific, but, the general allegations in that regard are insufficient. Likewise, allegations of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation must be pleaded with precession and the same must be supported by particulars. SA No.136 of 1992 Page 10 of 20 {{ 11 }} It is very fundamental in civil law that, allegations concerning fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence although are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, but, they are in law distinct categories and they have to be specifically set out in the pleadings with specificity, particularly and precision before any finding can be given on the same. So, the particulars of the alleged fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation is to be given in the plaint specifically. Therefore, a vague and general plea in respect of the aforesaid allegations can never serve the purpose in establishing the allegation of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Because, it is required for the party to plead in precise in respect of the manner of exercising fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Here in this suit at hand, when the plaintiffs have specifically stated in their plaint that, their predecessor Manohar Pradhan had purchased the suit properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint from Dayanidhi Pradhan (brother of the defendant No.1) as per the sale deed dated 02.02.1951 vide Ext.1 and when the defendants have alleged the allegations against the plaintiffs that, the said sale deed vide Ext.1 has been obtained from Dayanidhi Pradhan by practising fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as well as on the ground of the age SA No.136 of 1992 Page 11 of 20 {{ 12 }} of the vendor Dayanidhi Pradhan, as he (Dayanidhi Pradhan) was 22 years in age, while he was not of sound mind, but, when there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the defendants that, Dayanidhi Pradhan was neither blind nor illiterate at the time of execution and registration of that sale deed vide Ext.1, then, at this juncture, what should be the duty of the parties like the defendants, in this nature of suit for proving or disproving a sale deed like Ext.1 has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions: I. II. 1986 (1) OLR 598: Musi Dei Vs. Labanya Bewa & Another, AIR 1951 (SC) 280: Bishundeo Narain & Another Vs. Seogeni Rai & Others & 69 (1990) CLT 465: State of Orissa through Collector, Keonjhar & Another Vs. Dinanat Mohanto & Others. CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4— The allegation of fraud and misrepresentation must be clear, definite and specific—General allegation insufficient. 1989 (I) OLR 497: Gouri Shankar Misra (and after him) Rahasbehari Mishra & Another Vs. Fakir Mohan Dash & Others & 67 (1989) CLT 697: Gouri Shankar Misra & Another Vs. Fakir Mohan Dash & Others. CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4— Allegation of undue influence must be pleaded with precision and supported by particulars. III. AIR 1967 (SC) 878: Subhas Chandra Das Mushib Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib & Others, AIR 1973 Orissa 76: Raghunath Altia Vs. Arjuno Altia and Other, 1976 (I) C.W.R. 73: Bishnu SA No.136 of 1992 Page 12 of 20 {{ 13 }} Priya Dei & Another Vs. Brusabhanu Mohapatra & Others. CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4— Particulars of undue influence to be given. IV. AIR 1963 (SC) 1279: Ladli Prashad Jaiswal Vs. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., Karnal & Others. CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4—Undue Influence—A vague and general plea can never serve this purpose. The party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other. V. AIR 1975 (Orissa) 97: Harekrishna Sahu & VI. VII. Another Vs. Bhagirathi Sahu & Others. CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4—Particulars of fraud must be specifically and substantiated—Mere allegation would not suffice. 2018 (II) OLR (SC) 337: Siddagangaiah (D) Thr. LRs. Vs. N.K. Giriraja Shetty (D) Thr. LRs. fraud, CPC 1908—Order 6, Rule4—Plea of misrepresentation, undue influence and collusion although are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, but, they are in law distinct categories and they have to be specifically set out in the pleadings with specificity, particularly and precision before any finding can be given on the same. 2014 (2) Civ. L.T. 236: Seema Sarin & Another Vs. Sudesh Chander Talwar (Para No.51). T.P. Act, 1882—Section 54—An executant of a document is presumed to have read and understood the document prior to its execution, but he can avoid it, if it is proved that, it was obtained by fraud or force. VIII. AIR 1938 (Privy Council) 103: Martin Cashin & Others Vs. Peter J. Cashin (5 Judges Bench). T.P. Act, 1882—Section 54—Deed when not to be treated that, the same was executed without the knowledge of the executant—In a case, where a person executing the deed is neither blind, nor SA No.136 of 1992 Page 13 of 20 {{ 14 }} IX. illiterate, where no fraudulent misrepresentation is made to him, where he has ample opportunity of reading the deed and such knowledge of its purport that the plea of non-est factum is not open to him, it is quite immaterial, whether he reads the deed or not. He is bound by the deed, because it operates as a conclusive bar against him, not because he has read it or understands it, but because he has chosen to execute it. 2020 (4) Civ.C.C. 264 (Mad.):Nataraja Naidu (died) Vs. Soundararajan (Para Nos.7 & 8) Fraudulent Transfer—Whether an act is a fraudulent act has to be proved by a strong set of evidence, since in law, a man is presumed to intent the natural consequence of his act. Presumption shall always be in favour of Bonafide of a transaction and it requires strong contrary evidence to tilt probability in favour of one, who alleges fraud. 11. Herein this suit/appeal at hand, though the defendants have alleged general allegations against the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. against Manohar Pradhan alleging that, he (Manohar Pradhan) has managed to execute the sale deed vide Ext.1 dated 02.02.1951 from Dayanidhi Pradhan while he was 22 years in age by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence on him (Dayanidhi) without specifically stating in their pleadings with specificity, particularly and with precision about the nature and manner of practising the same on the vendor Dayanidhi Pradhan by Manohar Pradhan for execution of that SA No.136 of 1992 Page 14 of 20 {{ 15 }} sale deed vide Ext.1 from Dayanidhi Pradhan inconformity with law according to Order 6, Rule 4 of the CPC, 1908 and the ratios of the decisions referred to supra and when there is no material in the record to show on behalf of the defendants that, Dayanidhi Pradhan was either blind or illiterate at the time of execution and registration of Ext.1, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot at all be held that, the sale deed vide Ext.1 was a fabricated document. For which, in other words, it is held that, the conclusions drawn by the trial court in its Judgment and Decree passed in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 and the confirmation of the same by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1988 that, Ext.1 (sale deed) has been obtained by the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohara Pradhan from Dayanidhi Pradhan by practising fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and the said sale deed vide Ext.1 was a fabricated one cannot be sustainable under law. For which, it is held by reversing the findings and observations made by the trial court as well as by the 1st Appellate Court that, the Ext.1 (sale deed) executed by Dayanidhi Pradhan in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohara Pradhan in respect of the suit properties is a valid and genuine sale deed. Because, he (Dayanidhi Pradhan) has executed that sale deed vide Ext.1 SA No.136 of 1992 Page 15 of 20 {{ 16 }} on dated 02.02.1951 properly in respect of the suit properties in favour of Manohar Pradhan. So, far as the sustainability of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court in the suit as well as in the 1st Appeal are concerned; The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration of their title over the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and also for recovery of possession of the same. When, it is held above that, the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Pradhan has purchased the suit properties from Dayanidhi Pradhan admitting him (Dayanidhi Pradhan) as the son and successor of Shyama Pradhan and when Shyama Pradhan has expired leaving behind Bimala (defendant No.1) and Dayanidhi, as his one daughter and one son and when, after the death of Shyama Pradhan, his interest left in the suit properties devolved upon Bimala and Dayanidhi simultaneously, for which, Bimala (defendant No.1) and Dayanidhi had half share each in the suit properties. Therefore, Bimala (defendant No.1) as well as her children cannot be held as the strangers to the suit properties, because Bimala has a definite share in the suit properties like her brother Dayanidhi. Therefore, Bimala was a co-sharer of the suit properties with SA No.136 of 1992 Page 16 of 20 {{ 17 }} her brother Dayanidhi after the death of her father Shyama Pradhan. So, Dayanidhi had no power to alienate the share of Bimala in the suit properties. Therefore, as per law, in case of alienation of the suit properties by Dayanidhi Pradhan through the sale deed vide Ext.1 in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, his sell shall remain valid only to the extent of his share in the suit properties, but not more than that. On that aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio following decisions: I. II. 1974 (I) C.W.R. 222: Gananath Sahu & Another Vs. Smt. Bulli Sahu & Others (Para No.10), AIR 1973 (SC) 2451: Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh & Others, 2009 (I) CLR 560: Harekrushna Mahakud Vs. Radhanath Mahakud & Others. T.P. Act, 1882, Section 54—Transfer of property more than the transferor’s interest in lands jointly held with others is not invalid in toto. It would be valid and operative to the extent of the transferor’s interest in the lands. 116 (2013) CLT 209: Manoj Kumar Nayak & Another Vs. Guna Mohanty & Others (Para No.11), Vol.34 (1992) O.J.D. 137 (Civil): Gourhari Das Vs. Kalpataru Das & Others, (2008) 7 SCC 46: Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi & Others, 2008 (II) OLR 97: Smt. Bina Sukla Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Panch & Others, 106 (2008) CLT 330: Smt. Bina Sukla Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Panch & Others, 2009 (I) CLR 560: Harekrushna Mahakud Vs. Radhanath Mahakud & Others, 2009 (Supp.1) OLR 610: Harekrushna Mahakud Vs. Radhanath Mahakud & Others. T.P. Act, 1882, Section 54—Sale of joint property by one co- owner—Validity thereof—It is well settled that transfer by one of the co-owners remains valid to the extent of the share of the transferor. SA No.136 of 1992 Page 17 of 20 {{ 18 }} III. 2010 (IV) Civ.C.C. 05 (Punjab & Haryana): Balwinder Singh Vs. Gurcharan Singh T.P. Act, 1882, Section 54—Alienation out of the joint property by a co-sharer would amount to alienation of the property out of the share. Even the alienation of any specific Khasra number or specific portion amounts to alienation of the share which is subject to adjustment at the time of partition. 12. When the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of their title in the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants and when as per the discussions and observations made above, it has been held that, the defendant No.1 being the sister of Dayanidhi Pradhan was a co-owner/co-sharer of the suit properties with the plaintiffs, as, the plaintiffs are the purchasers of the share of Dayanidhi Pradhan, then at this juncture, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the declaration of their title over the entire suit properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint. Likewise, they (plaintiffs) are also not entitled for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants, as the defendants are the co-owners of the suit properties with the plaintiffs. For which, the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 as well as by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1988 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be held as erroneous, though it has been held, reversing the findings of the trial court as well as 1st Appellate Court that, the sale deed vide Ext.1 executed by Dayanidhi SA No.136 of 1992 Page 18 of 20 {{ 19 }} Pradhan in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Pradhan on dated 02.02.1951 is not a fabricated deed, but the same is a valid sale deed, for which, that sale deed vide Ext.1 can be used for the adjustment of the purchased share of Dayanidhi Pradhan in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs in the Judgment of a partition suit in respect of the suit properties, if filed by any of the co-owners/co-sharers thereof. 13. As the framed substantial question of law in this 2nd Appeal has been answered in favour of the appellants (plaintiffs) reversing the findings of the trial court and 1st Appellate Court without interfering with the final findings made in the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court, then, at this juncture, this 2nd Appeal of the appellants is to be allowed in part. 14. In the result, this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is allowed in part, but without cost. 15. The Judgments and Decrees passed by the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1985 as well as by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1988 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs are confirmed. But whereas, the findings and observations made by the trial court in issue Nos.2 to 5 as well as the confirmation of the said findings by the SA No.136 of 1992 Page 19 of 20 {{ 20 }} 1st Appellate Court that, the sale deed vide Ext.1 executed by Dayanidhi Pradhan in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Pradhan on dated 02.02.1951 vide Ext.1 in respect of the suit properties was a fabricated document are set aside. 16. It is made clear here that, in case of filing of any suit for partition in respect of the suit properties in future by any of the co-sharers of the suit properties, the sale deed vide Ext.1 can be used for the adjustment of the share of Dayanidhi Pradhan in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs are the purchasers of the share of Dayanidhi Pradhan. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer Date:04.04.2024 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India Date: 05-Apr-2024 16:09:24 SA No.136 of 1992 Page 20 of 20