The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.16 of 1999 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Sri Radhamohan Deb, represented through Marfatdar & Another …. Appellants -versus- Radhamohan Deb Bije Bharatipur, Dist.-Puri & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate. For Respondents - None. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :25.06.2024:: Date of Judgment :15.07.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment. 2. The appellants of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 and they were the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995. The respondents of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 and they were the SA No.16 of 1999 Page 1 of 19 {{ 2 }} appellants and respondent No.3 before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 against the defendants was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and in alternative recovery of possession.
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiff No.1 (Radhamohan Deb) is a deity and the plaintiff No.1-deity has been represented through plaintiff No.2. 3. As per the plaintiff’s case the plaintiff No.1-deity (Radhamohan Deb) is a private deity of Prusti Family i.e. the family of the plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 & 4. The suit properties are the properties of the Deity (plaintiff No.1). The defendant No.1 along with others were the Sebayats as well as Marfatdars of the plaintiff No.1-Deity. In lieu of their Seva Puja of the plaintiff No.1 deity, the defendant No.1 along with other Sebayats and Marfatdars were enjoying the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1) including the suit properties. The defendant No.4 is the wife of the defendant No.1.The plaintiff No.2 is the adopted son of defendant Nos.1 and 4. On dated 21.09.1990, the other co-Sebayats and Marfatdars of the plaintiff No.1 deity executed a Seva Samarpan Patra in favour of the SA No.16 of 1999 Page 2 of 19 {{ 3 }} defendant No.1 entrusting him (defendant No.1) to perform the Seva Puja of the deity on special occasions such as, Janmastami, Radhastami & Dola Purnima and to manage and enjoy the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1). Accordingly, the defendant No.l was enjoying the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1) including the suit properties and in lieu of such enjoyment, he (defendant No.1) was performing the Seva Puja as well as above annual festivals/rituals of the deity. There are some houses over the properties of the deity i.e. over the suit properties and some houses thereof have been let out and out of the collected rents from the said houses, the expenditures of the Seva Puja of the plaintiff No.1 deity were managing. When, some dissention arose in the family between defendant No.1, his wife (defendant No.4) and their adopted son (plaintiff No.2), for which, the plaintiff No.2 stayed outside from the house of the defendant Nos.1 & 4 in the same village in a rented house with his wife and children. For which, the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the plaintiff No.2 by filing a case and the said case was allowed and the plaintiff No.2 was directed by the court to pay monthly maintenance to the defendant Nos.1 & 4 as their adopted son. The defendant No.3 being one of the co- Marfatdar of the plaintiff No.1-deity, he (defendant No.3) was looking SA No.16 of 1999 Page 3 of 19 {{ 4 }} after the maintenance case of the defendant Nos.1 & 4 against the plaintiff No.2 on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 4. Therefore, there was closeness between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. So, the defendant No.1 executed and registered a Seva Samarpan Patra on dated 03.04.1991 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3 entrusting all acts, duties and obligations of the defendant No.1 for the plaintiff No.1-Deity to the defendant No.3 through that Seva Samarpan Patra. As such, by executing the said Seva Samaparpan Patra in favour of the defendant No.3 on dated 03.04.1991, he (defendant No.1) was released from his Marfatdarship and Sevayatship of the plaintiff No.1 (deity). As, the defendant No.3 is a stranger to the family of defendant Nos.1, 4 & plaintiff No.2, for which, the said deed i.e. Seba Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the properties of the deity i.e. in respect of the suit properties is invalid and bad under law. Because, that deed dated 03.04.1991 has been executed between defendant Nos.1 & 3 with a mala fide intention in order to defeat the legitimate rights, duties and obligations of the plaintiff No.2 for the plaintiff No.1-Deity including his rights of Seva Puja and management of the plaintiff No.1-Deity. Because, he (plaintiff No.2) is non-else, but he is the son and the next successor of SA No.16 of 1999 Page 4 of 19 {{ 5 }} the defendant Nos.1 & 4. When, on the strength of the aforesaid illegal deed i.e. Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties, the defendant No.3 tried to possess the suit properties forcibly, then without getting any way, the plaintiff No.1-deity and plaintiff No.2 approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 against the defendants praying for a declaration that, the deed i.e. Seva Samarpan Patra bearing No.1226 dated 03.04.1991 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties as invalid and to confirm the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and to recover the possession of the suit properties from the defendant No.3, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit by the defendant No.3. 4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.350 of 1991 filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed their joint written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiffs taking their stands inter alia therein that: The plaintiff No.1 deity Radhamohan Deb is a private deity of the Prusti Family and they are the Marfatdars of the deity and they being the SA No.16 of 1999 Page 5 of 19 {{ 6 }} Marfatdars of the deity, they are enjoying the usufructs of the properties of the deity i.e. suit properties by rendering Seva Puja and observing all the festivals/rituals of the plaintiff No.1-deity. Previously, other Marfatdars of the deity had executed a Seva Samarpan Patra in favour of the defendant No.1 entrusting him (defendant No.1) to perform the Seba Puja of the deity, but when due to the old age, the defendant No.1 became incapable to perform the Seva Puja and the rituals of the plaintiff No.1-deity, then, he (defendant No.1) executed a Seva Samarpan Patra in favour of the defendant No.3 on dated 03.04.1991 in respect of the suit properties, as he (defendant No.3) is also a co-Marfatdar of the deity with the defendant No.1 and he (defendant No.3) has also been performing the Seva Puja and rituals of the plaintiff No.1-Deity. Therefore, the deed i.e. Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties is not an illegal and invalid deed. The plaintiffs have no locus standie to challenge that deed. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against them (defendant Nos.1 & 3). The defendant No.4 (wife of the defendant No.1) filed her written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs stating therein that, the defendant No.3 has managed to execute the so-called Seva Samarpana SA No.16 of 1999 Page 6 of 19 {{ 7 }} Patra dated 03.04.1991 from the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties by practising fraud. For which, the defendant No.3 has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit properties on the basis of the said fraudulent Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991. That apart, he (defendant No.3) is a stranger to their family. For which, he (defendant No.3) is not entitled to perform the Seba Puja of the deity in place of her husband i.e. defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is to be decreed. 5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 9 numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 and the said issues are: ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. deity? 5. 6. suit property? 7. suit property? 8. 9. Whether the suit is maintainable? Whether there was any cause of action for the suit? Whether the suit is vitiated with fraud and collusion? Whether the suit property is the absolute Debottar property of the Whether the deed of Seba Samarpan Patra is valid and legal? Whether the plaintiff No.2 has any right, title and interest over the Whether the plaintiff No.2 or defendant No.3 are in possession of the Whether the plaintiff No.2 is performing the Seba Puja of the deity? What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs examined 2 witnesses from SA No.16 of 1999 Page 7 of 19 {{ 8 }} their side including the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and exhibited 3 documents on their behalf vide Exts.1 to 3. The supporting defendant of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant No.4 examined 2 witnesses on her behalf. The contesting defendant No.3 examined 3 witnesses on his behalf including him as D.W.5 and exhibited series of documents from his side vide Exts.A/1 to D/1. 7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos.1 and 3, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 as per its Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.1995 and 08.05.1995 respectively on contest against the defendants, but without cost and declared that, the Seva Samarpan Patra (Ext.B/1) executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 on dated 03.04.1991 is invalid and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the suit properties from the defendant No.3 and directed the defendant No.3 to deliver the vacant SA No.16 of 1999 Page 8 of 19 {{ 9 }} possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of the Judgment and Decree assigning the reasons that, the Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 vide Ext.B/1 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 is invalid and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff No.2, because, Sebayati right is heritable, but the same is not transferable. As, the defendant No.3 is possessing the suit properties i.e. the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1) on the strength of that invalid Seva Samarpan Patra vide Ext.B/1, for which, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant No.3, because, after the death of defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.2 being the only son and the successor of the defendant No.1, he (plaintiff No.2) is entitled under law to succeed all the rights, duties and obligations of the defendant No.1, those were attached with him (defendant No.1) for the plaintiff No.1-Deity. 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.1995 and 08.05.1995 respectively passed in T.S. No.350 of 1991 by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.3, he (defendant No.3) challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995 being the appellant No.1 against SA No.16 of 1999 Page 9 of 19 {{ 10 }} the plaintiffs arraying the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 as respondents, as by then, the defendant No.1 had expired leaving behind the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4 as his successors. After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court allowed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995 of the defendant No.3 and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 of the plaintiffs assigning the reasons that, the transfer of Sevayatship through Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 vide Ext.B/1, by one Sevayat i.e. defendant No.1 in favour of his next heir in the line of succession i.e. defendant No.3 is permissible under law, as, he (defendant No.3) is non-else, but, he (defendant No.3) is the son of the brother of the defendant No.1. As, he (defendant No.1) is serving as a Junior Clerk in the Collectorate, Puri, for which, it was not possible for him to perform the Seva Puja and rituals of the deity wholeheartedly, because, he (defendant No.1) may not be allowed to come from Puri in all the times, for which, the defendant No.1 executed the Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 vide Ext.B/1 in favour of the defendant No.3 for performing of the Seva Puja and rituals of the deity like him (defendant No.1) properly and there is custom among the Marfatdars of the plaintiff No.1-Deity for the execution of Seva SA No.16 of 1999 Page 10 of 19 {{ 11 }} Samarpan Patra, when one Sevayat like the defendant No.1 becomes unable to perform Seva Puja and the rituals of the plaintiff No.1-Deity. That apart, the so-called adoption of the plaintiff No.2 as the adopted son of defendant Nos.1 & 4 cannot be established only on the basis of claim of maintenance by the defendant Nos.1 & 4 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the plaintiff No.2 as their son. Therefore, the Seva Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 vide Ext.B/1 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 is not invalid under law. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustainable under law. So, the 1st Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.1998 and 02.01.1999 respectively passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No. 64 of 1995 in favour of the defendant No.3 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the defendant No.3 arraying him as respondent No.2 and also arraying the defendant Nos.2 & 4 as other respondents. 10. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e. SA No.16 of 1999 Page 11 of 19 {{ 12 }} ii. is from his adopted i. When the adoption of plaintiff No.2 by Defendant No.1 and his wife defendant No.4 is admitted at all levels, more so realizing when defendant No.1 maintenance son plaintiff No.2, if the court below is correct in ignoring the adoption of plaintiff No.2 on the ground that he should have got himself declared as the adopted son by a competent civil court? Plaintiff No.2 being the son and successor of late defendant No.1, if defendant No.1 ignoring the claim of plaintiff No.2, is within his right to transfer his Sebait Marfatdari right by a Seba Samarpan Patra in favour of defendant No.3 who is not in the line of succession? The Seba Samarpan Patra Ext.B/1 itself having recited passing of consideration if the court below is justified in ignoring this recital and holding that the valuation has been mentioned for the purpose of stamp duty only? iii. 11. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) only, as none appeared from the side of the contesting respondent No.2 (defendant No.3) to participate in the hearing of the 2nd Appeal. 12. So far as the 1st substantial question of law i.e. When the adoption of plaintiff No.2 by Defendant No.1 and his wife defendant No.4 is admitted at all levels, more so when defendant No.1 maintenance from his adopted son i.e. plaintiff No.2, if the court below is correct in ignoring SA No.16 of 1999 Page 12 of 19 {{ 13 }} the adoption of plaintiff No.2 on the ground that he should have got himself declared as the adopted son by a competent civil court is concerned, When the adoptive parents of the plaintiff No.2 i.e. defendant Nos.1 & 4 are admitting the plaintiff No.2 as their adopted son claiming maintenance from him under Section 125 Cr.P.C, 1973 and when, in the written statement of the defendant Nos.1 & 4, they have admitted the plaintiff No.2 as their adopted son, then, at this juncture, the First Appellate Court should not have held that, there is no material in the record to establish the relationship of the plaintiff No.2 as the adopted son of the defendant Nos.1 & 4. Because, as per the provisions of law envisaged in Sections 58, 17 & 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, there cannot be any better evidence than the admissions of the parties in the suit. Because, facts admitted need not be proved. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in its Judgment and Decree that, the plaintiff No.2 has not established lawfully that, he (plaintiff No.2) is the adopted son of defendant Nos.1 & 4 cannot be held as correct under law. Therefore, it is held that, the plaintiff No.2 is the adopted son of defendant Nos.1 & 4. SA No.16 of 1999 Page 13 of 19 {{ 14 }} 13. So far as the 2nd and 3rd formulated substantial questions of law i.e. Whether the Seba Samarpan Patra dated 03.04.1991 vide Ext.B/1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties transferring all the rights and duties of the defendant No.1 as Shebait and Marfatdar of the plaintiff No.1-deity in favour of the defendant No.3 and transferring the possession of the suit properties in his favour is sustainable and valid or invalid under law is concerned, “It is the settled propositions of law that, Shebait Rights are obligations and duties. Sebayats are given the duty of performing sevapuja, in return, they are given certain benefits like share in the offerings and bhoga. Any transfer of sebayat right is opposed to public policy and that cannot be accepted by the Court. Therefore, Sebayat right is not transferable. Because, Sebayatship being a property devolve like any other property according to the ordinary Hindu Law of inheritance. The Seva Samarpan Patra is incapable of conveying any title in favour of the transferees, so far as the Sebait right of the transferor is concerned. The properties of the deity belong to the deity, but not to the Marfatdars. Sebayats have only the right to possess the land of the deity as long as they render specific service to the deity. Sebayats have no alienable right to the Seva Land. Therefore, the Sebayats cannot transfer any right, title SA No.16 of 1999 Page 14 of 19 {{ 15 }} and interest in the property belonging to the deity. Sebayati Right is not transferable, but the same is heritable. If there is transfer of Sebayati Right through any deed by any Sebayat, the same is void ab-initio. Shebaiti as trustee must act jointly and the office Vests on the shebaits collectively, though some sort of division amongst the shebaits inter se/ is permissible for doing sevapuja by turn, which is allowed only on the ground of convenience. In the eye of law, the shebaits remain one body, and the deity is represented by all of them acting together and no one shebait represents the idol in part or possesses any interest in fractional shares in respect of the idol’s property. Thus, the Sevasamarpana Patra, is incapable of conveying any title in favour of the transferees.” 14. On this aspect the propositions of law has been clarified by the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:
Legal Reasoning
I. 110 (2010) CLT 574: Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur & Others Vs. State of Orissa & Others—Land—Land of the deity belong to the deity & not to the Marfatdars. (Para No.5) II. 2010 (Supp.-II) OLR 594 & 2010 (II) CLR 219:Kasinath Panda & Others Vs. Raghunath Panda (deleted) Basudeb Panda & Others—RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT—Sebait rights—Transfer of— Sebayati rights are obligations and duties—Sebayats are given the duty of performing sevapuja, in return, they are given certain benefits like share in the offerings and bhoga—Any transfer of sebayat right is opposed to public policy and that cannot be accepted by the Court. III. 2014 (4) Civ.L.T. 477 (Kerala):Narayan Pandarathil Vs. Vasudevan Pillai—Right of Uraima or ‘Shebaitship’ is considered by {Para No.23} SA No.16 of 1999 Page 15 of 19 {{ 16 }} Hindu Law as inalienable as personal interest of Shebaits cannot be detached from their duties. (Para No.24) IV. 2015 (I) CLR 998: Niranjan Mekap & Others Vs. State of Orissa & Others—Endowment— Sevayats—Only right to possess to land as long as they render specific service—Sevayats have no alienable right to the seva land. Held, therefore, the Sevayats could not have transferred any right, title and interest on the property belonging to the deity. (Para 60) V. AIR 1979 (SC) 1682:Profulla Chorone Requitte and Others Vs. Satya Choron Requitte—Hindu Law-Religious Endowment— Shebaits— Shebaitship being property devolves like any other species of heritable property. (Para Nos.20 to 23 & 26) VI. 2003 (1) C.J.D. (H.C.) 295:Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee, Puri & Another Vs. Narayan Mohapatra: Shebaiti right—Transfer—Shebaiti right is not transferable—If transfer/sale is made, the same is abinitio void. (Para No.13) 15. It appears from the Order No.27 dated 08.02.2024 that, Commissioner of Endowments through its counsel has submitted a memo indicating that, the plaintiff No.2 is not indexed as public religious endowment institution. So, on the basis of the aforesaid submission on behalf of the Commissioner of Endowment, it is held that, the plaintiff No.1 deity is a private deity of the defendant No.1’s family. As per the discussions and observations made above, it has already been held that, the defendant Nos.1 & 4 are the husband and wife and the plaintiff No.2 is their adopted son. The plaintiff No.2 is the successor of defendant No.1. SA No.16 of 1999 Page 16 of 19 {{ 17 }} In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, Shebait Rights are obligations and duties. Shebaits are given the duties of performing Seba Puja of the deity. Sehebait right is not transferable but the same is heritable. If there is any transfer of Shebaitishp either through Seba Samarpan Patra like Ext.B/1 or otherwise, the same is ab-initio void as per law. Therefore, the transfer of Sebayat right of the defendant No.1 through Seva Samarpan Patra vide Ext.B/1 in favour of the defendant No.3 debaring/excluding the plaintiff No.2 from his legitimate right of Seba Puja of the plaintiff No.1-deity is held to be invalid and void ab initio. Because, the plaintiff No.2 being the son of defendant No.1, he (plaintiff No.2) is the successor of defendant No.1. 16. When it has been indicated in the so-called Seba Samarpan Patra vide Ext.B/1 about the transfer of possession of the properties of the plaintiff No.1-deity i.e. the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3, then in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the transfer of possession of the suit properties by the defendant No.1 through Ext.B/1 is held to be illegal under law. Because, as per law, the suit properties are the properties of the plaintiff No.1-deity, but the same are not the properties of any Marfatdar including defendant No.1. Because, the owner i.e. plaintiff No.1-deity is the lawful possessor SA No.16 of 1999 Page 17 of 19 {{ 18 }} of the suit properties. The possession thereof cannot be transferred by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3. Sebayats like the defendant No.1 has no transferable right including the right of transfer of possession of the Seba Land i.e. the suit properties. When Seba Right is not transferable, but the same is heritable and when as per law, after the death of the Sebayat i.e. defendant No.1, all his rights and obligations of the defendant No.1 for the plaintiff No.1-deity has already been devolved upon the plaintiff No.2, as the plaintiff No.2 is the only son as well as successor of the defendant No.1, for which, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 that, the Seba Samarpan Patra vide Ext.B/1 executed by the defendant No.1 on dated 03.04.1991 in favour of the defendant No.3 is invalid and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and the possession of the defendant No.3 over the suit properties is illegal cannot be held erroneous. 17. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in T.A.No.64 of 1995 that, the transfer of Sebayatiship and possession of the suit properties by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 through Seba Samarpan Patra vide Ext.B/1 as lawful has been held to be unsustainable under law and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial SA No.16 of 1999 Page 18 of 19 {{ 19 }} Court in the suit has been held as sustainable under law, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.64 of 1995 through this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs). 18. Therefore, there is merit in the 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs). The same must succeed. 19. In result, the 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is allowed on contest, but without cost. The Judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.64 of 1995 is set aside. 20. The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.350 of 1991 is confirmed. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer Date:15.07.2024 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 23-Jul-2024 16:07:05 SA No.16 of 1999 Page 19 of 19