The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.254 of 2000 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Janaki Majhi (dead) and others …. Appellants -versus- Nangi Majhiani (dead) and another ..... Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - For Respondents- Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate. appearing on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, Advocate. Mr.S. D. Das, Sr. Advocate. assisted by Mr. M. Faradish, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :08.08.2024 :: Date of Judgment :23.08.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This second appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment. 2. The original appellant in this second appeal i.e. Janaki Majhi was the sole defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 and respondent before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1992. Page 1 of 20 {{ 2 }} When, during the pendency of this second appeal, the original appellant Janaki Majhi expired, then his LRs have been substituted as appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in his place. The respondent Nangi Majhiani along with her sister Lakshmi Majhiani were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988. When, during the pendency of the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988, the Lakshmi Majhiani (plaintiff No.1) expired leaving behind plaintiff No.2
Legal Reasoning
(Nangi Majhiani) as her successor, then the plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani alone prosecuted the suit against the defendant before the Trial Court. That plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1992. When, during the pendency of the second appeal, the respondent Nangi Majhiani expired, then in her place, Dakhina Hansda has been substituted as respondent. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 filed by the respondent Nangi Majhiani along with her sister Lakshmi Majhiani against the defendant Janaki Majhi was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Page 2 of 20 {{ 3 }} 4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court as per their pleadings was that, their father Janaki Majhi had two wives, namely, Pama and Karmi. Pama had one daughter, namely, Rukmini through her husband Janaki. Karu is the husband of Rukmini. The defendant (Janaki Majhi) is the son of Rukmini Majhi through Karu. The plaintiffs (Lakshmi Majhiani and Nangi Majhiani) are two daughters of Janaki Majhi through his second wife Karmi. Janaki died in the year 1960 leaving behind his two wives i.e. Pama and Karmi. The daughter of Pama i.e. Rukmini had predeceased Pama in the year 1958 leaving behind her mother Pama, her husband Karu and her son Janaki Majhi (defendant). The son of Rukmini i.e. Janaki was the sole defendant in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988. The second wife of Janaki Majhi i.e. Karmi Majhi died in the year 1960 leaving behind her two daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, namely, Lakshmi Majhiani and Nangi Majhiani. 5. The aforesaid genealogy of the parties stated in the plaint of the plaintiffs is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:- Page 3 of 20 {{ 4 }} Genealogy Janaki Majhi (dead) =Pama (1st Wife) Rukmini (dead) = Karmi (2nd Wife) =Karu (Husband) Nangi (P-2) Lakshmi (P-1) Janaki (defendant) 6. According to the plaintiffs, they (parties) to the suit are Santal by caste and belong to S.T. community. They are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law, but the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to them. The suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint were the properties of their father Janaki Majhi. During last settlement, the said suit properties were recorded exclusively in the name of Janaki Majhi (father of the plaintiffs). After the death of their father Janaki Majhi, they (plaintiffs) and their mother Karmi Majhi inherited the suit properties left by their father Janaki Majhi and divided the said suit properties in three equal shares between them i.e. between Karmi and the plaintiffs equally. On the death of the first wife of their father i.e. Pama Majhi in the year 1983, they (plaintiffs) inherited the entire suit properties of their father Janaki Majhi and became the owners thereof. Page 4 of 20 {{ 5 }} During the life time of Pama Majhi, the defendant was looking after the properties, those were under the possession of Pama Majhi. They (plaintiffs) are the illiterate adibasi women and they were depending upon the defendant for looking after their all the affairs. So, taking the advantage of their such illiteracy, the defendant managed to record the suit properties jointly in his name along with the names of the plaintiffs in the Hal R.o.Rs in the year 1984. In fact, the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit properties. Because, after the death of Pama Majhi, they (plaintiffs) have become the owners of the entire suit properties and they are in possession over the same, in which, the defendant has no interest. When the defendant managed to record his name jointly with the plaintiffs illegally in respect of the suit properties, then he (defendant) threatened them (plaintiffs) on 23.12.1986 in various ways claiming his title and possession over the suit properties. For which, the plaintiffs compelled to approach the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 against the defendant praying for declaration of their title over the suit properties and to recover the possession of the suit properties from the defendant directing the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit properties to them (plaintiffs) along with other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for as per law and equity. Page 5 of 20 {{ 6 }} 7. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant contested the same by filing his written statement denying the allegations alleged against him by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking his stands specifically therein that, his grandfather Janaki Majhi had his one wife i.e. Pama. His mother Rukmini is the only legitimate child of Janaki Majhi through Pama Majhi. But, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Karmi was kept by Janaki Majhi in a separate cottage and Karmi was doing all works of Janaki and the plaintiffs are the illegitimate daughters of Janaki Majhi through Karmi. Janaki Majhi had given marriage to his mother Rukmini with his father Karu Majhi and had kept his father Karu Majhi as Gharajamain in the house of his grandfather i.e. Janaki Majhi. Janaki Majhi had given all rights to his Gharajamain son-in-law Karu as his son and Karu was doing all duties of Janaki Majhi as his son. In the custom of their Santal caste, when a son-in-law is taken to the house of his father-in-law as Gharajamain like his father Karu, the said Gharajamain is vested with all rights as the son of his father-in-law. The said custom is very ancient, immemorial, certain, reasonable, invariable, prevalent and recognized by law as well as Court. The Santal
Legal Reasoning
of Mayurbhanj have been following the said customs. Janaki Majhi had kept his son-in-law Karu as Gharajamain through deliberate public act in presence of his villagers at the time of his marriage with Rukmini. For Page 6 of 20 {{ 7 }} which, Karu had cut off almost all his connections with his natural father’s family and was remaining in the house of Janaki Majhi for all purposes including inheritance and succession as the son of Janaki Majhi. Pama was not the limited owner. After the marriage of Karu with Pama’s daughter Rukmini, Karu (father of the defendant) had been possessing the suit properties as his own right. After the death of Janaki, Pama, Karu and Rukmini, the suit properties devolved upon him (defendant) and he (defendant) has been possessing the suit properties as the owner thereof being the successor of Janaki, Pama, Rukmini and Karu. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. But, the suit properties have been erroneously recorded jointly in the name of the plaintiffs along with his name. In fact, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. So, the names of the plaintiffs should not have been recorded jointly with the defendant in respect of the suit properties. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief against him (defendant). For which, the suit of the plaintiffs against him (defendant) is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. When, during the pendency of the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988, the first daughter of Karmi i.e. plaintiff No.1 expired leaving behind the Page 7 of 20 {{ 8 }} plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani as her successor, then Nangi Majhiani prosecuted the suit alone against the defendant. 9. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 6 (six) numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 and the said issues are:- I S S U E S (i) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (ii) Is there any cause of action to bring the present suit? (iii) If Karmi was the legally married wife of the common ancestor late Janaki and the plaintiff and her sister Lakshmi were born out of the said wedlock? (iv) Whether Karu was the son-in-law of the common ancestor late Janaki in Gharajamain form and he alone inherited the suit property like a son as per the custom of local Santal tribal community? (v) If the plaintiff has got any right, title, interest or possession over the suit land? (vi) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 10. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988, she (plaintiff No.2) examined altogether 3 (three) numbers of witnesses from her side including her as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 4 on their behalf. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendant examined 4 (four) witnesses from his side including him as D.W.4 and exhibited series of documents on his behalf vide Exts.A to A/5. 11. After the conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the Record, the Trial Court Page 8 of 20 {{ 9 }} answered issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 against the plaintiffs and answered issue No.4 against the defendant and basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 on contest, but without cost as per its judgment and decree dated 13.03.1992 and 25.03.1992 respectively assigning the reasons that, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Karmi is not the legally married wife of the original owner of the suit properties i.e. Janaki Majhi and the plaintiffs being the illegitimate daughters of Janaki Majhi, they (plaintiffs) have no right, title and interest in the suit properties left by Janaki Majhi described in Schedule ‘B’, though their names have been erroneously recorded in the Hal R.o.Rs of the year 1984 in respect of the suit properties jointly with the defendant. Because, after the death of the original owner i.e. Janaki Majhi, the suit properties had not devolved upon the plaintiffs, for which, they (plaintiffs) have no interest in the suit properties. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in the suit. 12. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 passed by the Trial Court on dated 13.03.1992 and 25.03.1992 respectively, the plaintiff No.2 i.e. Nangi Majhiani challenged the same by preferring the Page 9 of 20 {{ 10 }} First Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1992 being the appellant against the defendant arraying him (defendant) as respondent. 13. After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court allowed that First Appeal of the plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani vide T.A. No.19 of 1992 on contest against the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 on contest against the defendant and declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and also declared that, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant through due process of law as per its judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000 and 12.05.2000 respectively assigning the reasons that, the long standing relationship between Janaki and Karmi has established their relationship as husband and wife and out their such relationship, the plaintiffs had borne, for which, Karmi was not the concubine of Janaki. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not the illegitimate children of Janaki. Because, there was prevailing custom of second marriage in Santal community during lifetime of first wife. For which, the marriage between Janaki and Karmi during the lifetime of his first wife Pama is established. Page 10 of 20 {{ 11 }} According to Article 43 (6)(i) of Hindu Law by Mula, 12th Edition, a daughter’s son is not entitled to succeed, if there is any living daughter. As Rukmini had predeceased Janaki (defendant), for which, after the death of Pama, the plaintiffs being the daughters had inherited the entire suit properties left by Janaki and Pama, in which, the defendant has no interest. 14. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs, he (defendant) challenged the same by preferring this second appeal being the appellant against the plaintiff No.2 arraying her (plaintiff No.2) as respondent. 15. When, during pendency of the second appeal, the appellant (defendant) expired, then, his LRs have been substituted in his place as appellants. While during the pendency of the second appeal, respondent (plaintiff No.2) expired, then in her place, Dakhina Hansda has been substituted as respondent. 16. This Second Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e.- Whether, the parties to the suit/appeal being the (i) persons of Scheduled Tribe community having their sub- caste Santal are guided and governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or they are excluded from the Page 11 of 20 {{ 12 }} applicability of the said Act, 1956 in view of Section 2(2) of that Act, 1956? Whether (ii) the suit the defendant has properties through inheritance and succession from his grandfather, namely, Janaki Majhi as his predeceased daughter’s son? title in (iii) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree of the dismissal of suit passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 declaring the title of the plaintiffs over the entire suit properties and for passing the decree of recovery of possession against the defendant is sustainable under law? (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit properties was maintainable under law? 17. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 18. So far as the 1st formulated substantial question of law i.e. whether the parties to the suit/appeal being the persons of Scheduled Tribe community having their sub-caste Santal are guided and governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or they are excluded from the applicability of the said 1956 Act in view of Section 2(2) of that Act, 1956 is concerned; In Paragraph No.1 of the plaint of the plaintiffs, they have specifically stated/pleaded that, they (parties) are Santal by caste and members of Scheduled Tribe Community and they are governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. Page 12 of 20 {{ 13 }} The law concerning the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the persons, those belong to Scheduled Tribe community having their sub-Caste i.e. Santal like the parties in the suit/appeal at hand has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- AIR 1971 (Patna) 185 (DB)—Langa Manjhi and (i) others Vrs. Jaba Majhian and others—(Paras 11 to 14)— Santals have become sufficiently Hinduised and they are governed by the Hindu law in the matter of succession and inheritance. 77 (1994) C.L.T. 219—Dumi Majhiani (having (ii) died) Chandra Mohan Majhi and others Vrs. Lalamohan Majhi and others—(Para 4)—Hindu Succession Act, (2)—Scheduled Tribes—Santals— 1955—Section Succession law is Hindu Law and not customary law. 2 (2000) 8 SCC 587—Labishwar Manjhi Vrs. Pran (iii) Manjhi and others—(Para 6)—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Sections 2(2) and 14—Applicability of the Act— Whether parties who belong to Santhal Tribe are still continuing with tradition and hence excluded from operation of the Act by virtue of Section 2(2) or they have become Hinduised and changed their custom to that which is followed by Hindus—On facts held, appellants became Hinduised and hence entitled to benefits of Section 14. their customary 19. When it is the own pleadings of the plaintiffs that, they (parties) to the suit belong to Scheduled Tribe community and their sub-Caste is Santal and they are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, then by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and the Apex Court, it is held that, though, they (parties) belong to Scheduled Tribe community having their sub-Caste Santal, but they (parties) are guided and governed by Page 13 of 20 {{ 14 }} Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable to them in the matter of their succession and inheritance and they are not excluded from the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So, Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall not be a bar for its applicability to them in the matter of their succession and inheritance. 20. So far as the 2nd substantial question of law i.e. whether the defendant has title in the suit properties through inheritance and succession from his grandfather i.e. Janaki Majhi as his predeceased daughter’s son is concerned; It is the own pleadings of the parties that, the suit properties were originally belonged to Janaki Majhi. The said Janaki Majhi died in the year 1960 leaving behind his two wives i.e. Pama and Karmi. Pama had one daughter i.e. Rukmini. But, Rukmini had predeceased Pama leaving behind her son i.e. defendant. The second wife of Janaki i.e. Karmi died in the year 1960 leaving behind her two daughters i.e. plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are the illegitimate daughters of Janaki Majhi through her second wife Karmi Majhi. The rights of the illegitimate children like the plaintiffs in their father’s properties has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 14 of 20 {{ 15 }} (i) 2023 (4) CCC 64 (S.C.)—Revanasiddappa and another Vrs. Mallikarjun and others—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955— Sections 11 & 16—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—A child born from a voidable marriage which has been annulled, such a child will have rights to or in property of parents and not in property of any other person. (ii) 2024 (2) Civil Court Cases 031 (S.C.)—Raja Gounder & Ors. Vrs. M. Sengodan & Ors.—(Para 16)—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 16—Children born out of void and voidable marriage—Once the status of children is established as extended family of propositus, irrespective of whether the marriages of mothers of children with propositus is void or voidable, children are entitled to a share in the property of notional partition in favour of the propositus. (iii) 2022 (1) CCC 41 (Patna)—Sunita Devi @ Ankush Kumari and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar and Ors.—Section 16— Children of void marriage are legitimate for the purpose of inheritance of property of their ancestors. (iv) 2020 (1) Civil Court Cases 147 (Kerala)—Padmini Amma Vrs. Karthiyani Amma—(Para 7)—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 16—Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages—Benefit of legitimacy extended to all illegitimate children born out of wedlock even in absence of decree of nullity of marriage or a void marriage. When it has already been held that, parties are governed and guided by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, then, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, even though, the plaintiffs are the illegitimate children of the original owner Janaki Majhi through his second wife Karmi, they (plaintiffs) are entitled to inherit the suit properties left by Janaki Majhi. 21. The defendant is the son of Rukimini Majhi and the said Rukmini Majhi had predeceased her mother Pama Majhi (first wife of Janaki Page 15 of 20 {{ 16 }} Majhi) and when the first wife of Janaki Majhi i.e. Pama died leaving behind the defendant as her predeceased daughter’s son, then the defendant is the son of the predeceased daughter of Pama Majhi and Janaki Majhi. When the plaintiffs are the illegitimate daughters of Janaki Majhi through his 2nd wife Karmi Majhi, then as per the list of heirs indicated in Class-I of the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as per Section 9 of that Act, 1956, the plaintiffs and defendant being the daughters and son of the predeceased daughter are simultaneously entitled to inherit/succeed the suit properties left by Janaki Majhi. Therefore, as per law, the plaintiffs and the defendant are the co- owners of the suit properties. For which, the joint R.o.Rs of the suit properties published in the year 1984 vide Exts.1, 2 & 3 in the the names of the plaintiffs and defendant cannot be held as erroneous. So, it is held that, the plaintiffs and the defendant are the joint owners over the suit properties. 22. So far as the 3rd and 4th formulated substantial questions of law i.e. whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 declaring the title of the plaintiffs over the entire suit properties and for Page 16 of 20 {{ 17 }} passing the decree of recovery of possession against the defendant is sustainable under law and whether the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit properties was maintainable under law are concerned; It has already been held that, neither the plaintiff No.2 alone nor the defendant alone is the exclusive owner over the suit properties, but they are the joint owners of the same. The R.o.Rs of the suit properties vide Exts.1, 2 & 3 have been prepared jointly in the names of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It has been held above that, the plaintiffs and defendant are the joint owners of the suit properties. As such, the plaintiffs and the defendant are the co- sharers in the suit properties, but the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of their title over the entire suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint and they have also prayed for recovery of possession of the entire suit properties without seeking for partition of the same. The law on that aspect has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2335 (Three Judges Bench)—Sri Ram Pasricha Vrs. Jagannath and others—(Para 30)—A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. (ii) 2018 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 749 (Himachal Pradesh)—Ashok Kapoor Vrs. Murtu Devi—Co sharer—Every co-sharer is owner in possession of every inch of joint estate. Page 17 of 20 {{ 18 }} (iii) 2017 (4) Civil Court Cases 014 (Himachal Pradesh)—Girdhari Lal & another Vrs. Amin Chand—Co-sharer—Till is partitioned amongst the cosharers, all the cosharers are entitled to use every inch of land and they are owners in possession of entire land. land the (iv) 2019 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 586 (Madras)— S. Selvarajan (Died) Vrs. R. Saraswathi (Died)— Section 34—Suit for declaration—Joint property—Suit for declaration without filing suit for partition in respect to undivided property is not maintainable. (v) 2024 (2) CCC 166 (Orissa)—Tankadhar Pradhan and Ors. Vrs. Bimala Naik @ Dei (dead) and Ors.— Specific Relief Act—Section 34—a co-owner with defendant is not entitled for declaration of his title over the entire suit properties. (vi) 2011 (177) DLT 159 (Delhi)—Shri Madan Lal (through LRs) and Others Vrs. Shri Ram Pratap (through LRs) & Ors—Specific Relief Act, 1963— Section 5—Suit for recovery of possession filed by plaintiff—Plaintiff not being in exclusive possession of suit property. The suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 23. Here in this suit at hand, when it is held that, the plaintiffs and defendant are the co-owners (co-sharers) of the suit properties and when the R.o.Rs. of the suit properties vide Exts.1, 2 & 3 are joint in the names of the plaintiff and defendant and when the joint and undivided suit properties of the plaintiff and defendant have not been partitioned between them as yet through any metes and bounds partition and when as per law, the plaintiff and defendant are the owners and in possession over every inch of the joint and undivided suit properties and when the plaintiff and defendant are entitled under law to use every inch of the Page 18 of 20 {{ 19 }} joint and undivided suit properties and when in the suit at hand, the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of their title over the entire suit properties and when they (plaintiffs) have also prayed for recovery of possession of the entire suit properties against the defendant, though as per law, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the entire suit properties, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the entire suit properties and recovery of possession of the entire suit properties against the defendant without filing the suit for partition of the joint and undivided suit properties, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and recovery of possession cannot be held as maintainable under law. For which, the First Appellate Court should not have reversed the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs and also should not have passed the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs, but should have confirmed the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court has not done so. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court through this second appeal filed by the defendant. Page 19 of 20 {{ 20 }} Therefore, there is merit in the second appeal of the defendant (appellant). The same must succeed. 24. In result, the second appeal filed by the appellant (defendant) is allowed on contest. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.19 of 1992 is set aside. The only final conclusion drawn by the Trial Court regarding the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 as per its judgment and decree is confirmed, but not the findings and the reasons assigned therein. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 23.08.2024//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Aug-2024 16:41:12 Page 20 of 20