The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.144 of 1987 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Damodar Sahoo & Others …. Appellants -versus- Natabar Sahoo & Others …. Respondents For Appellants - Mr.D.P.Mohanty,Advocate On behalf of Mr.B.H.Mohanty,Advocate For Respondents - Mr.A.Pal,Advocate On behalf of Mr.B.Pal,Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :02.04.2025:: Date of Judgment :16.05.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment. 2. The predecessor of the appellants and respondent No.8 in this 2nd appeal i.e. Krushna Sahoo was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I and respondent No.1 before the 1st Appellate Court in both the 1st Appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 respectively. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 1 of 21 // 2 // The respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal i.e. Natabara Sahoo was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I and respondent No.2 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1985 and appellant before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.09 of 1985. The respondent No.2 in this 2nd Appeal i.e. Ramesh Sahoo was the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I and respondent No.3 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1985 and respondent No.2 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.9 of 1985. The respondent Nos.3 to 7 in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 7 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982- I and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1985 and respondent Nos.3 to 7 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.9 of 1985. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The suit of the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) against the defendants vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. 4. As per the averments made by the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) in his plaint that, the father of the defendant No.2 i.e. Brajabandhu SA No.144 of 1987 Page 2 of 21 // 3 // Sahoo is his son-in-law. He (plaintiff) is an old and ailing person. He (plaintiff) has three daughters namely Champa, Mali and Rama and one son namely Damodar. He (plaintiff) and Damodor are staying in joint mess. Brajabandhu is the husband of his third daughter i.e. Rama. Brajabandhu has two sons i.e. Ramesh Sahoo (defendant No.2) and Brahmananda. The said two sons of Brajabandhu i.e. Ramesh (defendant No.2) and Brahmananda were staying in the house of the plaintiff for prosecuting their studies. For which, Brajabandhu was usually visiting to the house of the plaintiff. Due to suffering from serious eye diseases, he (plaintiff) lost his vision power to a great extent. So, Brajabandhu suggested him (plaintiff) for his treatments at Bhubaneswar hospital, to which, the plaintiff agreed. Then, Brajabandhu took the plaintiff and his wife to his village Balakati on the pretext of their treatments before a Doctor at Bhubaneswar. On 30.06.l981, Brajabandhu took the plaintiff and his wife in a rickshaw to Bhubaneswar for their treatments at Bhubaneswar, but, Brajabandhu took them into a building instead of taking them to the Doctor, wherein, he (Brajabandhu) took the thumb impressions of the plaintiff and his wife on some papers expressing SA No.144 of 1987 Page 3 of 21 // 4 // that, they (plaintiff and his wife) are putting their thumb impressions for the purpose of their treatments. Some days thereafter, the son of the plaintiff i.e. Damodar informed to the plaintiff that, Brajabandhu has managed to execute two sale deeds from him (plaintiff) in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the properties of the plaintiff vide sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 on dated 30.06.1981. After knowing about the same from his son Damodar Sahoo, he (plaintiff) realized that, Brajabandhu has taken his thumb impressions in the said so-called sale deeds at Bhubaneswar in a building practicing fraud on the false pretext of his treatment before a doctor. 5. The properties covered under the sale deeds bearing Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, in which, his son Damodar along with his wife and daughters had/have joint interest. For which, the plaintiff alone had/have no authority under law to alienate the suit properties in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. In fact, there was no payment of any consideration to the plaintiff for the said sale deeds and there was also no delivery of possession of the suit properties covered under the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 4 of 21 // 5 // Brajabandhu (father of defendant No.2) has created sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.3 to 7 in respect of the suit properties on the basis of the above sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 fraudulently. So, the sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 to 7 are void and non-est in the eye of law. 6. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I against the defendants praying for a declaration that, the sale deeds bearing Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the subsequent sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.3 to 7 on the basis of the above sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 are void and to confirm the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties covered under the said sale deeds and to injunct the defendants permanently from entering into the same. 7. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint against the defendants taking his stands that, the suit of the SA No.144 of 1987 Page 5 of 21 // 6 // plaintiff is not maintainable under law. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of Brajabandhu (who is the necessary party to the suit), as all the allegations have alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint against Brajabandhu. The further case of the defendant No.1 was that, the plaintiff was staying separately after being separated in mess and properties from his son Damodar. The properties covered under the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 i.e. the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife being neglected by their son Damodar, they were staying with their son-in-law Brajabandhu at village Balakati. Brajabandhu had never suggested the plaintiff for his treatment at Capital Hospital Bhubaneswar. As, the plaintiff was neglected by his son Damodar and he was in need of money for his maintenance, for which, he (plaintiff) sold his self-acquired suit properties out of his own free Will by executing and registering the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 on dated 30.06.1981 in his favour as well as in favour of the defendant No.2 voluntarily after receiving the due consideration amount of the same. No fraud was practiced on the plaintiff by Brajabandhu on behalf of SA No.144 of 1987 Page 6 of 21 // 7 // defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the execution and registration of the said sale deeds bearing Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 in their favour. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against the defendants including him (Defendant No.1) with costs. 8. The minor defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. 9. The defendant Nos.3 to 7 also filed their separate joint written statement taking identical pleas like the defendant No.1 in their written statement. The specific case/plea of the defendant Nos.3 to 7 was that, the plaintiff was the grandfather i.e. mother’s father of the defendant No.2. For which, he (plaintiff) sold the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.2 out of his own volition. The defendant Nos.3 to 7 are the bona fide purchasers of the suit properties from the defendant No.2. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 10. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether nine number of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I and the said issues are:- SA No.144 of 1987 Page 7 of 21 // 8 // Issues Is the suit maintainable? Has the plaintiff any cause of action? 1. 2. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary 3. parties? Is the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 4. valid and did it convey any title in favour of the defendant No.2? Is the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 5. valid and did it convey title in his favour? Did the defendant No.1 and Brajabandhu 6. practised fraud on the plaintiff? 7. Have defendant Nos.3 to 7 acquire any title in respect of the property covered under their sale deeds? 8. Were the properties covered under the impugned sale deeds, the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff? To what relief, if any the plaintiff is 9. entitled? 11. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief (s), sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, he (plaintiff) examined two witnesses from his side including him (plaintiff) and his son as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively without exhibiting any document. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants examined six number of witnesses from their side including defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7 as D.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 6 and relied upon the series of documents vide Exts.A to L on their behalf. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 8 of 21 // 9 // 12. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, evidence and documents available in the record, the Trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made by the trial Court in all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I on contest against the defendants as per its judgment and decree dated 06.05.1985 and 25.06.1985 respectively and declared that, the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 executed by the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant Nos.3 to 7 in respect of the suit properties are void and also declared that, the plaintiff has not conveyed any title in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and declared the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties and confirmed his possession thereon and restrained the defendants permanently from dealing with the suit properties assigning the reasons that, the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 along with Brajabandhu had managed to execute the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 on dated 30.06.1981 in favour of the Page 9 of 21 SA No.144 of 1987 // 10 // defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit properties by practising fraud without payment of any consideration and without delivery of possession. As, the executant of the Sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 is an old, illiterate and infirm person having his low vision, for which, burden was upon the beneficiaries of the sale deeds i.e. defendants to prove the due/proper execution of the said deeds by the plaintiff with his intention and full knowledge of execution, but, the defendants failed to discharge their such burden. For which, due/proper execution of the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 has not been proved by the defendants. For which, the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. Therefore, all the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendants are void. 13. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 06.05.1985 and 25.06.1985 respectively passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I in favour of the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) and against the defendants, the defendant Nos.3 to 7 challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 being the appellants against the plaintiff Krushna Sahoo arraying him as respondent No.1 and also arraying the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as respondent Nos.2 and 3. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 10 of 21 // 11 // Likewise, the defendant No.1 Natabara Sahoo challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.366 of 1982-I in favour of the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.9 of 1985 being the appellant against the plaintiff Krushna Sahoo arraying him as respondent No.1 and also arraying the defendant Nos.2 to 7 as respondent Nos.2 to 7. 14. When during the pendency of the aforesaid 1st Appeal Nos.08 of 1985 and 09 of 1985 respectively, the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo, respondent No.1 in both the 1st appeals) expired, then his wife, son and daughters were substituted in his place as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). 15. After hearing the above two separate 1st appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 (arising out of the same judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.366 of 1982-I) from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court allowed both the first Appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 respectively pronouncing the judgments separately and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.366 of 1982-I and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as per its judgment and decree dated 10.02.1987 and SA No.144 of 1987 Page 11 of 21 // 12 // 27.02.1987 respectively assigning the same reasons in both the appeals that, “though, the plaintiff Krushna Sahoo had a defective eye sight, the same will not shift the burden on the defendants to prove that, the transactions through sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 were free from fraud, unless the plaintiff has successfully proved that, due to his defective vision coupled with his mental incapacity to understand the nature of the transaction, he has executed the sale deed bearing Nos.5066 and 5067 on dated 30.06.1981 without his any intention to transfer the suit properties covered therein and without knowing the contents of the said sale deeds, when, there is evidence in the record that, contents of the said sale deeds were read over and explained to the plaintiff, who admitted the same to be correct and put his LTIs thereon and when the license deed writer having his license No.44 has deposed that, the stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 on dated 30.06.1981 by putting his LTIs on the same and when, he (plaintiff) had produced other documents for execution of the said sale deeds and when, the deed writer has deposed that, the contents of the sale deeds were read over and explained to the plaintiff and after knowing the contents thereof as correct, he (plaintiff) put his LTIs on the same, then at SA No.144 of 1987 Page 12 of 21 // 13 // this juncture, the due and proper execution of the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been duly established and the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) has failed to discharge the burden, which was lying upon him to establish that, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have obtained the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 from him (plaintiff) by practicing fraud. For which, the due execution of the said sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981 vide Exts.A and C by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been proved.” 16. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 10.02.1987 and 27.02.1987 respectively passed against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants in T.A. Nos.08 of 1985 and 09 of 1985 respectively, the substituted LRs of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in both the 1st appeals challenged the said judgments and decrees of both the 1st appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 by preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents. 17. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:- SA No.144 of 1987 Page 13 of 21 // 14 // Whether, the findings of fact by the learned 1st Appellate Court is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 18. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 19. It is the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Courts that, “the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo, who is the executant of the so-called sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 dated 30.06.1981) is an old, illiterate and ailing person aged about 70 years having his low vision”. 20. When, the learned trial Court in its judgment and decree held that, burden was upon the defendants (beneficiaries of the sale deeds) to prove due/proper execution of the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 vide Exts.A and C dated 30.06.1981, to which, the learned 1st Appellate Court reversed assigning the reasons that, it was the duty of the plaintiff (vendor of the said sale deeds) to prove the due/proper execution of the said sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 vide Exts.A and C dated 30.06.1981. 21. As such, when due and proper execution of the sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 vide Exts.A and C dated 30.06.1981 by an old, ailing and illiterate vendor i.e. plaintiff in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 has remained under challenge on the allegation against SA No.144 of 1987 Page 14 of 21 // 15 // the defendants that, they (defendants) have managed to execute the same from him (plaintiff) by practising fraud and misrepresentation and when it is the case of the old, ailing and illiterate executant i.e. plaintiff that, he (plaintiff) has not executed the said deeds with his intention and knowledge of execution thereof, then in these nature of allegations and counter allegations, the burden of proof lies upon whom has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:-
Legal Reasoning
(i) In a case between Sankirtan Sha & Others Vrs. Jaya Krushna Patel reported in (2003) CLR 780 in Para No.8 that, the principle applicable to a pardanashin lady is in pari materia application to an illiterate person. The person, who relies on a document to sustain a transaction entered into with an illiterate person has to establish that, the said document was executed by him (illiterate person) only after clearly understanding the nature and character of the transaction. The burden unless is discharged physical signing of the document cannot be treated as the mental act of the author. (ii) In a case between Smt. Sarada Sawalka Vrs. Swatantra Kumar Agarwal reported in 2014 (Supp.II) OLR 744 in Para No.10.2 that, protection applicable to a Pardanashin woman can be extended to an illiterate and rustic village woman or to documents made by old, invalid, infirm and illiterate persons. (iii) In a case between Smt. Hiramani Swain (died) Chaitan Swain & Others Vrs. Ramesh Chandra Senapati & Others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 648 that, when a document illiterate pardanashin lady, she need not prove fraud. It is the person, who depend upon the document is to prove that, is executed by an SA No.144 of 1987 Page 15 of 21 // 16 // it had been read over and explained to the executant and she signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. (iv) In a case between Maguni Charan Dey Vrs. Ujaimani Dei & Others reported in 2018 (II) CLR 503 in Para No.10 that, one who wants to rely on a document executed by an illiterate person must be able to establish that, the contents of the said documents were read over and explained to that person and the signature or thumb mark was appended to it by the executant after understanding the purport and/or the contents of the document. (v) reported in AIR 1972 Mad. 336 that, In a case between R.J.Gounder Vrs. V.T. Elaiya onus of proof relating to executions by illiterate person. Burden of proving that, document was properly explained and interpreted to illiterate person before he affixed his marks thereupon is on the party relying on the document. (vi) In a case between Somanath Mishra Vrs. Narahari Das reported in AIR 1977 NOC 304 (Orissa) that, an illiterate person cannot read the contents of the documents and so one who wants to rely on such a document must establish that, the illiterate person knew the contents and purport of the document before affixing his or her left hand thumb impression or mark to that document. Merely on the proof of the signature or thumb impression of such an illiterate person on such a deed, a court cannot hold that, the said document was duly executed, as due execution of a deed does not merely mean singing on or putting one’s mark to a deed without knowing the contents of the same. Due execution of a document must always indicate that, the mind of the executant did concur such with the contents of the document thumb concurrence he/she put her signature it impression on the deed. So long, that is not done, cannot be said that, document was duly executable. and with or SA No.144 of 1987 Page 16 of 21 // 17 // Law Courts, therefore, consider it desirable and necessary that, one who wants to rely on a document executed by an illiterate person must be able to establish that, the contents of the said document were read over and explained to that person and the signature or thumb mark was appended to it by the executant after understanding the purport and/or the contents of the document. (vii) Kandi reported in 41 (1975) CLT 978 that, In a case between Makha Bewa Vrs. Bimbadhar executant no certificate in the deed to the effect that, the illiterate after executed understanding the contents of the same, but, merely stated that, the deed was read over and explained to the executant is not sufficient. deed the 22. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when, it is the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court that, the plaintiff Krushna Sahoo (executant of the so-called sale deeds bearing Nos.5066 and 5067 vide Exts.A and C dated 30.06.1981) is an old, illiterate, rustic and infirm person having his low vision, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, it is held that, it was/is the duty of the defendants (beneficiaries) of such deeds vide Exts.A and C to establish that, the contents of the said sale deeds vide Exts.A and C were written as per the instruction of the plaintiff Krushna Sahoo and after execution of the same, the contents thereof were read over and explained to him (Krushna Sahoo) in presence of the witnesses and the so-called executant of the sale deeds i.e. Krushna SA No.144 of 1987 Page 17 of 21 // 18 // Sahoo had put his thumb marks on the said deeds vide Exts.A and C after understanding the import of the contents of the same and the said deeds vide Exts.A and C was certified by the deed writer that, the old, illiterate, rustic and infirm executant of the said sale deeds i.e. Krushna Sahoo had appended his thumb marks on the same after understanding the contents thereof as correct. 23. It is curious enough that, none of the witnesses of the defendants including the defendant No.1 (D.W.1) and defendant No.4 (D.W.3) has uttered or whispered a single word in their respective evidence that, Krushna Sahoo (the executant of the so-called sale deed Nos.5066 and 5067 vide Exts.A and C dated 30.06.1981 i.e. plaintiff) had appended his LTIs on the said deeds after understanding the contents thereof. Likewise, there is no certificate in Exts.A and C to the effect that, contents of the Exts.A and C were read over and explained to the plaintiff (Krushna Sahoo) in presence of the witnesses and after understanding the contents thereof and admitting the same as correct, he (plaintiff) had appended his LTIs on the same. 24. When, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the burden was on the defendants to establish Page 18 of 21 SA No.144 of 1987 // 19 // that, the contents of the Exts.A and C were read over and explained to the so-called executant Krushna Sahoo (plaintiff) and after understanding the contents thereof and admitting the same as correct, he (Krushna Sahoo)/plaintiff had appended his thumb marks on the same and when, the defendants have not discharged their such burden adducing evidence in conformity with the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, then at this juncture, it is held that, the learned 1st Appellate Court has misplaced such lawful burden upon the plaintiff instead of defendants. Because, it is forthcoming from the judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court that, the plaintiff had a defective vision and it is also forth coming from the contents of Exts.A and C that, the plaintiff is an illiterate as well as an old person, then, as per law burden was lying upon the defendants to prove due/proper execution of Exts.A and C in their favour by the plaintiff with the intention and knowledge of the plaintiff about the execution of the said sale deeds vide Exts.A and C by him (plaintiff) in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, but, the learned 1st Appellate Court has misplaced such burden on the plaintiff instead of defendants. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 19 of 21 // 20 // 25. The above observations of the learned 1st Appellate Court concerning the misplacing of burden of proof in deviation with law shall automatically vitiate the judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- In a case between Rangammal Vrs. Kuppuswami & (i) Another reported in 2011 (3) Civ.C.C. 446 (S.C.) that, misplacing burden of proof would vitiates judgments.While appreciating the question of burden of proof, misplacing of burden of proof on a particular party and recording findings in a particular way definitely vitiates the judgment. 26. As per the discussions and observations made above, the findings of fact arrived by the learned 1st Appellate Court reversing the findings and observations made by the trial court misplacing the burden of proof are to be vitiated under law. For which, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Courts in both the 1st Appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 respectively cannot be sustainable under law. As such, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants. SA No.144 of 1987 Page 20 of 21 // 21 // Therefore, there is merit in the appeal of the appellants (successor of the plaintiff). The same must succeed. 27. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellants is allowed on contest, but, without cost. 28. The judgment and decree dated 10.02.1987 and 27.02.1987 respectively passed by the learned 1st Appellate Courts in both the 1st Appeals vide T.A. No.8 of 1985 and T.A. No.9 of 1985 are set aside. 29. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.366 of 1982-I is confirmed. (A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack 16th Of May, 2025/ BinayakSahoo// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-May-2025 10:59:16 SA No.144 of 1987 Page 21 of 21