The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.169 of 1997 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Mst. Uma Bhainsa wife of late Bhagabatia Bhainsa & Another …. Appellants Ram Bihari Bhainsa & Others …. Respondents -versus- Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr. K.M. Dhal, Adv. For Respondents - None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :25.04.2024:: Date of Order :17.05.2024 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.75 of 1986 and they were the appellants before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1996. The respondents of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 and they were the S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 1 of 20 {{ 2 }} respondents before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appellate Court vide T.A. No.20 of 1996. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 before the Trial Court against the defendants (respondents in this 2nd Appeal) was a suit for partition. 3. According to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, they (plaintiffs) are the mother and daughter respectively. Their family pedigree as given in their plaint is depicted hereunder: Pandi Bhainsa (died 30 years ago) Bhagabatia (Died 1960)
Legal Reasoning
Rama Bhainsa (defendant No.1) Rajendra (defendant No.2) Mst. Uma Bhainsa (plaintiff No.1) Smt. Niralata (plaintiff No.2) Sudin Kumarmani Dillip (defendant No.3) (Defendant No.4) (defendant No.5) As per the genealogy given by the plaintiffs in their plaint, Pandi Bhainsa was their common ancestor. The wife of Pandi Bhainsa pre deceased him (Pandi Bhainsa). Pandi Bhainsa died about 30 years back leaving behind his 3 sons i.e. Bhagabatia, Rama (defendant No.1) and Rajendra (defendant No.2). The defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the sons of the defendant No.1 (Rama Bhainsa). The plaintiff No.1 is the widow wife of Page 2 of 20 S.A No.169 of 1997 {{ 3 }} Bhagabatia Bhainsa. The plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Bhagabatia Bhainsa. According to the plaintiffs, the properties described in the schedule “A” and “B” of the plaint are the suit properties. The same are their joint and undivided properties. The suit properties have not at all been partitioned between them (parties) till yet through any metes and bounds partition. The suit properties have been recorded jointly in the Hal MS R.o.R in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are possessing forcibly major portions of the suit properties causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs, for which, the disturbances arose between them. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the defendants for metes and bounds partition of the suit properties, to which, the defendants did not agree. Then, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 against the defendants praying for partition of their one third share from the suit properties. 4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants challenged the same by filing their joint written statement taking their stands therein that, Bhagabatia Bhainsa died on 05.03.1956. The entire schedule “A” properties are not the joint ancestral properties of Bhagabatia Bhainsa (predecessor of the plaintiffs). Out of the suit properties described in S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 3 of 20 {{ 4 }} schedule “A” of the plaint, the plot No.689 Ac.0.06 Decimals, Plot No.686 Ac.0.22 Decimals and Plot No.685 Ac.0.58 Decimals under suit khata No.56 is under the exclusive possession of the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5. Because, the said three suit plots were purchased by the defendant No.1 (Rama Bhainsa) from Dukhamati Dei and Sarojini on dated 04.06.1960 through an unregistered document and since the date of purchase i.e. since 04.06.1960, the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 are in possession over the said three plots vide plot Nos.689, 686 & 685. As the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 are in possession over the said three plots, for which, they have perfected their title over the said three suit plots vide plot Nos.689,686 & 685 through adverse possession, in which, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have no interest. But the Major Settlement Authorities without conducting any enquiry about the same, they have recorded the above three suit plots vide Plot Nos.689,686 & 685 jointly along with other properties in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants under suit Khata No.56. The Settlement Authorities have also included some lands of other persons in the suit M.S. Khata No.56. Therefore, it is not correct to say that, all the properties described in schedule “A” are the ancestral properties of the husband of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. Because, the plaintiff No.1 after the death of her husband Bhagabitia Bhainsa, she has remarried. For which, she S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 4 of 20 {{ 5 }} (plaintiff No.1) has lost her right of partition. The plaintiff No.2 is not the daughter of Bhagabitia Bhainsa. For which, she (plaintiff No.2) has no right of partition like plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have also no right of partition over the “B” schedule house and homestead properties. Because, they (plaintiffs) have not spent a single pie for the construction of the house situated over the “B” schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right in the said “B” schedule properties. The suit of the plaintiffs is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. So, the suit of the plaintiffs for partition is not maintainable under law against them (defendants). The same is required to be dismissed. 5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 6 numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 and the said issues are: Issues i. Is the suit maintainable? ii. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties? iii. Are the entire Schedule “A” land ancestral land of the parties? iv. Have the plaintiffs any right over the suit land? v. Is there any cause of action for the suit? vi. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 5 of 20 {{ 6 }} 6. For partition of the suit properties, the plaintiffs examined 2 witnesses from their side including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and exhibited series of documents on their behalf vide Exts.1 to 4. In order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendants examined 2 numbers of witnesses from their side including the defendant No.1 as D.W.2 and relied upon the documents vide Ext.A to Ext.C. 7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1,2,5 & 6 in full in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, but, answered the issue Nos.3 and 4 in part in favour of the plaintiffs and in part in favour of the defendants and on the basis of the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in the aforesaid issues, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 preliminarily in part on contest against the defendants, but without cost and declared that, the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/3rd share and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/3rd share each from all the properties of Schedule “A” other than suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 of Schedule “A” and the properties of Schedule “B” assigning the reasons that, when, after the death of Bhagabatia Bhainsa, his widow wife i.e. plaintiff No.1 has been staying with her 2nd husband without remaining in occupation of the house and homestead properties described in Schedule S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 6 of 20 {{ 7 }} “B” of the plaint, then, she (plaintiff No.1) is not entitled to get any share from the Schedule “B” properties and when, the plaintiff No.2 has married before filing of the suit, then, she (plaintiff No.2) being a married daughter is also not entitled to get any share from the Schedule “B” house and homestead properties as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. Likewise, they (plaintiffs) are also not entitled to get any share from the suit plots vide MS Plot Nos.689,686 & 685 under suit Khata No.56. Because, the said 3 plots are the purchased properties of the defendant No.1. For which, the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/3rd share from the rest of the properties other than Schedule “B” and plot Nos.689, 686 & 685 of Schedule “A”. 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid part Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1995 and 17.04.1995 respectively passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 for partition of 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs from all the suit properties other than the properties described in Schedule “B” and Plot Nos.689,686 and 685 of Schedule “A”, the plaintiffs challenged the said part Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court passed in T.S. No.75 of 1986 by preferring the 1st Appeal being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 7 of 20 {{ 8 }} After hearing from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1996 of the plaintiffs as per its Judgment and decree dated 22.02.1997 and 03.03.1997 respectively on contest against the defendants/respondents confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.75 of 1986 accepting all the findings and observations made by the Trial Court. 9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1996 of the plaintiffs passed by the 1st Appellate Court, they (plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. 10. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e. a) Whether defendant respondent No.1 can be said to have acquired valid title to the properties covered under Ext.B which is unregistered and hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act? b) Whether the presumption arising out of the finally published record of rights Ext.1 recording the disputed plot Nos.685,686 & 689 in the name of plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 jointly can be said to have been rebutted by Ext.B which comprises Plot Nos.694 & 695 in the absence of anything to show that the latter two plots corresponds to the former three plots? c) Whether the initial burden of proof that the Schedule “A” properties are the joint family S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 8 of 20 {{ 9 }} properties have been discharged by the plaintiffs-appellants by the production of Ext.1 and whether the lower appellate court is justified in drawing adverse inference against the appellants for non-production of previous R.o.R to show that the disputed plot Nos.685,686 & 689 were the ancestral properties of Pandi Bhainsa specially when the defendant did not produce any document to co-relate the plots comprised in Ext.B with the three disputed plots mentioned above? 11. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) only, as none appeared from the side of the respondents (defendants) to participate in the hearing of the 2nd appeal. 12. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments and Decrees have held that, the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled to get any share from the house and homestead properties described in Schedule “B”, as, she (plaintiff No.1) remarried and stayed with her 2nd husband after the death of her 1st husband i.e. Bhagabatia Bhainsa. Likewise, the plaintiff No.2 is also not entitled to get any share from the Schedule “B” house and homestead properties as, she (plaintiff No.2) is a married daughter and she is living in her husband’s house since her marriage, which is much prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, according to the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, both the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share from Schedule “B” house and homestead properties. S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 9 of 20 {{ 10 }} Likewise, they (plaintiffs) are also not entitled to get any share from the plot Nos.689,686 & 685 of suit khata No.56 described in Schedule “A”. Because, the said properties were purchased by the defendant No.1 through an unregistered document vide Ext.B on dated 04.06.1960. 13. As the above 3 formulated substantial questions of law are in respect of the refusal of the prayers of the plaintiffs for partition of Schedule “B” house and homestead properties along with plot Nos.689,686 & 685 under Khata No.56 of Scheule “A”, for which, the above 3 substantial questions of law are taken together into discussion hereunder. 14. It is the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court that, plaintiff No.1 was the legally married wife of Bhagabatia Bhainsa and the said Bhagabatia Bhainsa (brother of the defendant Nos.1 and 2) has expired after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as his widow wife and daughter respectively. The aforesaid findings of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court regarding the death of Bhagabatia Bhainsa after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his widow wife and daughter i.e. as his successors has already been reached in its S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 10 of 20 {{ 11 }} finality due to non-challenge of the said findings by any of the defendants. The law which was bar for a widow wife like the plaintiff No.1 to inherit the joint and undivided properties left by her deceased husband on the ground of her remarriage after the death of her husband, as per the provisions of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856,the said Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act has already been repealed since 1983, i.e. much prior to the filing of the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. It is the settled propositions of law that, Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1956 cannot divest a widow on the ground of her remarriage from the vested properties upon her prior to her remarriage. On that aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions: i. 2018 (I) CLR 853:Uma Sahu Vs. Sabitri Sahu (Para No.12) & 2018 (II) CLR 855:Panchanan Das Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mishra—Hindu Widow’s Remarraige Act, 1856—Section 2—Widow’s Right to inherit Husband’s property—Right vested with wife (widow) on the death of her husband can’t be divested on her remarriage. ii. 2001 (1) DMC 14 Madhya Pradesh: Basanta Vs.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Laxmibai & Others—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Sections 6, 23—Civil Procedure Code, 1908— Section 115— Coparcenary Property: Dwelling House: S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 11 of 20 {{ 12 }} Deceased Died Intestate Having Interest in Coparcenary Property: Widow Would Succeed to Entire Right of Deceased—If deceased dies intestate, having some interest in coparcenary property, leaving behind his female heir, succession would be governed under provisions of Act—Widow of deceased co- parcener comes in Clause 1 of Schedule of succession—She would succeed to entire right of deceased—If other members of coparcenary cannot be deemed as successors of deceased, Section 23 would have no application. As the interest in the suit properties left by the deceased husband of the plaintiff No.1 i.e. Bhagabatia Bhainsa had already vested upon his widow wife (plaintiff No.1) and his daughter i.e. plaintiff No.2 (daughter) on the death of Bhagabatia Bhainsa, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, the remarriage of the plaintiff No.1 even some days after the death of her husband cannot and shall not divest her (plaintiff No.1) from her vested interest in the schedule “B” joint and undivided house and homestead properties. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court as well as by the 1st Appellate Court debarring the plaintiff No.1 from succeeding the joint interest of her deceased husband in the “B” Schedule house and homestead properties cannot be sustainable under law. For S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 12 of 20 {{ 13 }} which, the plaintiff No.1 shall be entitled to get her legitimate share in the “B” schedule joint and undivided house and homestead properties of the plaint. So, far as the disentitlement of the married daughter i.e. plaintiff No.2 from the schedule “B” house and homestead properties as per Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act is concerned, The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1986, which is much after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The propositions of law has already been settled by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions that, daughter has been recognized and treated as a Coparcener by birth with equal rights and liabilities as that of a son. It is not necessary that, a Coparcener, whose daughter is conferred with the rights is alive or not on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession Amended Act, 2005. On that aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (i). 2020 (II) CLR (SC) 420: Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others (3 Judges Bench)— Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Interpretation of Section 6 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Coparcenary Right is by birth—Daughter’s right—According to the Mitakshara coparcenary Hindu law, as administered, S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 13 of 20 {{ 14 }} which is recognized in section 6(1), it is not necessary that, there should be a living, coparcener or father as on the date of the amendment, to whom, the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. (ii). 2023 (3) CCC 90 (SC): Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Others Vs. Charulata Sahu & Others—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Commencement of Amendment Act, 2005—Daughter has been recognized and treated as a coparcener by birth with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son—It is not necessary that a coparcener, whose daughter is conferred with rights is alive or not on date of commencement of Amendment Act, 2005. (iii). 2022 (3) CCC 358 (Raj.): Priyanka Shrimali & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others—Hindu Law—Status of a married daughter—A son continues to be a son both before and after marriage—A daughter continues to be a daughter before or after marriage. This relationship is not effaced either in fact or in law upon marriage—Marriage does not bring about a severance of relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter—Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from who constitutes a member of family, when State has adopted a social welfare policy, which is grounded on dependency. (iv). 2009 (1) CLR (SC) 957:G. Sekar Vs. Geetha & Others—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Section 23(As S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 14 of 20 {{ 15 }} omitted by Amendment Act, 2005)—Dwelling house— Section 23 of the Act, however, carves out an exception in regard to obtaining a decree for possession inter alia in a case where dwelling house was possessed by a male heir. Apart therefrom, the right of a female heir in a property of her father, who has died intestate is equal to her brother. (Para No.17) (v). 2007 (2) CCC 169 (Karnataka):Rathnakar Rao Sindhe Vs. Smt. Leela Ashwath—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Omission of Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act would apply to all proceedings whether original or appellate involving adjudication of rights of parties and pending as on 09.09.2005 or initiated after that date. (vi). 2017 (1) CCC 70 (Ori.): Smt. Binapani Nayak Vs. Pruthiraj Parida (dead) his LRs and Another— Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 23—Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Right of partition of female heir over dwelling house—In view of omission of the provision in statute—A Hindu female heir can seek partition of dwelling house. (vii). 2015 (3) CCC 229 (All.):Km. Prema Devi & Others Vs. Raja Ram—Hindu Succession Act, 1956— Section 23—Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—Second appeal is also considered as continuation of suit, and as such, in view of amending Act, 2005. 15. Here in this suit at hand, the suit vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 was filed by the married daughter along with her widow mother as plaintiffs in the S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 15 of 20 {{ 16 }} year 1986 and the 1st Appeal was preferred by them in the year, 1996 and the 2nd Appeal is sub judice since 1997. When, during the pendency of this 2nd Appeal, Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act has been omitted from the statute book by providing absolute right to all the female heirs including the married daughters entitling them (married daughters) for seeking partition of the joint house and homestead properties, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, it is held that, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments excluding the married daughter i.e. plaintiff No.2 from getting any share from the joint and undivided house and homestead properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint cannot be sustainable under law. For which, in other words, it is held that, both the plaintiffs i.e. widow mother and married daughter are authorized under law to seek partition in respect of the joint house and homestead properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint and to get their legitimate shares from the same. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments excluding the plaintiffs from getting their share from the Schedule “B” suit properties are not sustainable under law. S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 16 of 20 {{ 17 }} 16. So far as the findings and observations made by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court debarring the plaintiffs from getting their shares in suit Plot Nos.689,686 & 685 under suit Khata No.56 described in Schedule “A” on the ground of purchase of the said properties by the defendant No.1 through an unregistered document dated 04.06.1960 vide Ext.B is concerned, It is forthcoming from the unchallenged Hal R.o.R of the suit properties vide Ext.1 published in the year, 1976 that, all the suit properties including the suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 have been recorded jointly in the name of the plaintiff No.2 along with the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said joint recording of all suit properties including suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 has been continuing as yet without being challenged. The above long standing unchallenged R.o.R vide Ext.1 since the year 1976 is bringing a presumption that, all the suit properties including the suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 under Khata No.56 are the joint and undivided properties of the parties. Though, the defendant No.1 has claimed the suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 as his exclusively purchased properties through an unregistered document dated 04.06.1960 vide Ext.B, but, the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 have not filed and proved any document showing any correspondence/nexus/relation between the plot S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 17 of 20 {{ 18 }} numbers indicated in the Ext.B (unregistered deed) i.e. C.S. plot Nos.694 and 695 with the suit Hal Plot Nos.689,686 & 685. As such, the defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 have not been able to bring any nexus/connection between the plot numbers indicated in the so-called unregistered deed vide Ext.B (on which, the defendant No.1 has relied upon and has claimed the said 3 plots as his purchased plots) with the Hal suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685. Therefore, the presumptions provided through the joint recording of all the suit properties including suit plot Nos.689,686 & 685 in the long standing unchallenged R.o.R vide Ext.1 showing the joint ness of all the suit properties of all the properties to the suit has not at all been rebutted. Therefore, by taking the presumptions provided in the unchallenged joint R.o.R vide Ext.1 in respect of the suit khata No.56, it is held by discarding the findings and observations made by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that, like other properties described in Schedule “A” and “B”, the plot Nos.689,686 & 685 in suit khata No.56 are also the joint and undivided properties of the parties and the said properties have not at all been partitioned/divided between them. For which, the plaintiffs are entitled to get their 1/3rd share jointly from all the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and “B” both in the plaint. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 18 of 20 {{ 19 }} and First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments and Decrees that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share from Schedule “B” properties as well as from plot Nos.689,686 & 685 of Schedule “A” are set aside. As such, there is merit in this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs). The same must succeed. 17. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is allowed on merit but without cost. The part dismissal of the suit for partition of the plaintiffs passed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court in respect of the Schedule “B” properties and plot Nos.689,686 & 685 under suit Khata No.56 of Schedule “A” is set aside. 18. The suit be and the same vide T.S. No.75 of 1986 filed by the plaintiffs is decreed preliminarily for partition on contest against the defendants but without cost. Out of the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and “B” of the plaint, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share. The defendant Nos.1,3,4 & 5 are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share and the defendant No.2 entitled to get 1/3rd share subject to adjustment of the alienations if any, made by the parties, in the meantime, from the shares of the respective parties, who has so alienated. S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 19 of 20 {{ 20 }} The parties may amicably affect partition of the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and “B” of the plaint in proportion to their respective shares as indicated above within a period of 3 months hence, failing which, any one of the parties may apply the court for making the decree final. In the final decree proceeding, the Civil Court Commissioner to be appointed by court, shall make division all the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and “B” of the plaint amongst the parties by allotting their respective shares in their favour in accordance with the apportionments made above and while so partitioning, he shall respect to the possession and convenience of the parties. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 17.05.2024,//Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India Date: 20-May-2024 12:38:54 S.A No.169 of 1997 Page 20 of 20