The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.101 of 2000 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Kailash Chandra Mohanty & Another -versus- …. Appellants Debendranath Kanungo & Others …. Respondents For Appellants - Mr. D.P.Mohanty, Advocate For Respondents - None CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :11.09.2024:: Date of Judgment :20.09.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2. The appellants in this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.4 and 5 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.39 of 1992. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.39 of 1992. The respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 Page 1 of 19 SA No.101 of 2000 // 2 // and respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.39 of 1992. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 before the Trial Court against the defendants (appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for
Legal Reasoning
partition, declaration and confirmation of possession. 4. The case of the plaintiffs was that, their father is defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is the second wife of defendant No.1. They (plaintiffs) and defendant No.3 are the three sons of the defendant No.1 (Srinibas Kanungo) through his 1st wife. 5. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for an instant reference, the aforesaid genealogy stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint is depicted hereunder:-
Legal Reasoning
Genealogy Srinibash Kanungo (D-1) Late Niladriprava (1st wife) Kama Kanungo (D.2) (2nd wife) Debendra (P.1) Dhirendranath (P.2) Jitendranath (D.3) SA No.101 of 2000 Page 2 of 19 // 3 // 6. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the strangers to their family. The properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint is their joint and undivided properties. The properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint is the part of Schedule “A” properties. The suit properties i.e. the properties described in Schedule “A”, which includes Schedule “B” properties are their joint family properties, because, the said properties were allotted in favour of their father i.e. defendant No.1 through a registered deed of partition dated 20.01.1950 between him and his other co-sharers. For which, the properties described in Schedule “A” (those were allotted in favour of the defendant No.1 through the aforesaid registered deed of partition dated 20.01.1950) are their joint and undivided properties. So, the said properties described in Schedule “A” are liable for partition. When, the defendant No.1 married for the 2nd time to the defendant No.2 i.e. Kama Kanungo, then, he (defendant No.1) started selling their joint properties gradually at the instance of the defendant No.2 and lastly the defendant No.1 came from his native village and stayed at Konark with the defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 sold the Schedule “B” properties illegally through a void sale deed dated 05.11.1985 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 without the consent and knowledge of the SA No.101 of 2000 Page 3 of 19 // 4 // plaintiffs. For which, the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 executed by the defendant No.1 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 is illegal, inoperative, invalid and void, because, there was no legal necessity in their family for selling the Schedule “B” properties to the defendant Nos.4 and 5. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 praying for partition of their legitimate shares from the suit properties and to declare that, the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties as illegal and void and also to declare that, that said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 is not binding upon them (plaintiffs) and to confirm their possession over the suit properties. 7. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987, the defendants filed their written statement jointly and separately. Though, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement jointly, but, the defendant Nos.3 filed his written statement independently. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed their written statement jointly. In the joint written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 2, they (defendant Nos.1 and 2) denied the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking their specific stands that, he (defendant No.1) had SA No.101 of 2000 Page 4 of 19 // 5 // married first to Niladriprava and out of their wedlock three sons and 4 daughters have born. The said three sons are the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and their four daughters are Basanta, Bidulata, Sulochana and Sujata. Niladriprava died in the year 1975. After the death of Niladriprava, he (defendant No.1) married to defendant No.2 i.e. Kama Kanungo and through defendant No.2, two daughters have born and their names are Sabita and Namita. His daughters have not been made as party in the suit. The ancestral properties left by his father was very meager. The same was not sufficient to meet the expenditures of the family. For which, during his lifetime, he (defendant No.1) had served/worked in different organizations. Out of his own income, he had purchased the Schedule “A” properties, which includes Schedule “B” properties. For which, the Schedule “B” properties are not his ancestral properties, but the same were his self-acquired properties, in which, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 had no interest. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs for partition of Schedule “A” properties is not maintainable under law. He (defendant No.1) has sold the Schedule “B” properties to the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to meet his legal necessities for repayment of the loan of the family. The Schedule “B” properties are not his Bari Gadia, as, the same is not attached to their house and home stead land. The Schedule “B” Tank is situated at a distance of 35 chains away from their residential house and SA No.101 of 2000 Page 5 of 19 // 6 // homestead. For which, the Schedule “B” Tank is not a part and parcel of their homestead land. There are two small tanks in their homestead land called as Bari Gadia. The same have been using for Pisciculture as well as for bathing and cleaning purposes. For which, the sale of the Schedule “B” properties in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 by him (defendant No.1) cannot be held as invalid. The defendant No.3 has filed his written statement stating that, the properties described in Schedule “B” is a tank, called as Bari Gadia, which is situated inside their house and homestead land. The water of the said Bari Gadia has been using for agricultural purposes. The yearly income of their family from the said Gadia is about 3000/- through Pisciculture. The defendant No.1 alone was not competent to execute and register the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5. No money has been paid by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 as consideration amount to the defendant No.1 for purchasing the Schedule “B” properties. As, the plaintiffs were not pulling well with the defendant No.1, for which, he (defendant No.1) has executed the said nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties. So, the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties is SA No.101 of 2000 Page 6 of 19 // 7 // void and illegal. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have not acquired any right, title and interest or possession over the Schedule “B” properties. For which, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 have no interest in the suit properties. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 challenged the suit of the plaintiffs by filing their joint written statement denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking their stands that, they (plaintiffs and defendant No.3) neither had any business nor any service of their own, but, they were depending upon their father i.e. defendant No.1. When, the defendant No.1 became gradually older and older, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 did not look to the interest of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, but, they (plaintiffs and defendant No.3) forcibly drove away defendant Nos.1 and 2 from their ancestral house. So, without getting any way, for repayment of the loan, he (defendant No.1) sold the Schedule “B” properties to them (defendant Nos.4 to 5) on dated 05.11.1985 after receiving due consideration amount thereof from them (defendant Nos.4 and 5) and delivered possession of the same to them (defendant Nos.4 and 5). The suit tank described in Schedule “B” of the plaint is not the Bari Gadia of the plaintiffs, because, the said suit tank described in Schedule “B” is at a distance of 35 chains away from the residential house of the plaintiffs. For which, the suit tank described in Schedule “B” is not the part and parcel of the homestead land of the plaintiffs and defendant SA No.101 of 2000 Page 7 of 19 // 8 // Nos.1 to 3. There are two small tanks in the Bari of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. So, the alienation made by the defendant No.1 on dated 05.11.1985 in respect of the Schedule “B” tank is valid, legal and binding upon the plaintiffs. They (defendant Nos.4 and 5) have already invested Rs.40,000/- in excavating the suit tank for pisciculture purpose. If the plaintiffs pay them the cost of their purchase money and the cost of the improvements of the suit tank made by them, they (defendant Nos.4 and 5) can retransfer the same to them (plaintiffs). The defendant No.1 has also previously transferred his other properties through twelve numbers of sale deeds since 1951 till 1985 in favour of different purchasers including Bata Krushna Mohanty, Santilata Dei, Bhagaban Sahoo, Sekh Dhadia, Sugar Tarini Routray, Narendranath Mohanty, Loknath Das, Bauribandhu Samal along with them (defendant Nos.4 and 5). So, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against them (defendant Nos.4 and 5). 8. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether nine numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No. 52 of 1987 and the said issues are:- 1. 2. I s s u e s Is the suit maintainable as framed? Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring this suit? SA No.101 of 2000 Page 8 of 19 // 9 // 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Is the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties? Is the Geneology of the parties correct? Is the suit property be partible, in as much as the property is self-acquisition of the defendant No.1? Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest in the suit property? Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any relief? Are the claim of the plaintiffs genuine? To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs entitled? 9. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s), sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5, the plaintiffs examined three number of witnesses on their behalf including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.2 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 3 from their side. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 examined seven witnesses from their side including defendant No.4 as D.W.3 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to L-1 on their behalf. 10. 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 plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5, as the issue No.3 was not pressed and basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 Page 9 of 19 SA No.101 of 2000 // 10 // preliminarily for partition on contest against the defendant Nos.4 and 5 and ex-parte against defendant Nos.1 to 3 as per its judgment and decree dated 18.04.1992 and 04.05.1992 respectively entitling the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 to get 1/5th share each in the suit properties described in Schedule “A” and confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs over the Schedule “B” properties and declared the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 executed by the defendant No.1 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 as illegal and void and the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs assigning the reasons that, the suit properties described in Schedule “A” (which includes Schedule “B” properties) are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3, but the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D in respect of the Schedule “B” properties in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 illegally without any consideration amount, for which, the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D in respect of the Schedule “B” properties executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 is void and illegal. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/5th share each from the Schedule “A” properties, which includes Schedule “B” properties. SA No.101 of 2000 Page 10 of 19 // 11 // 11. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 declaring the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties as void and illegal, they (defendant Nos.4 and 5) challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.39 of 1992 being the appellants against the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 arraying them as respondents. 12. After hearing from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed that first Appeal vide T.A. No.39 of 1992 of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 as per its judgment and decree dated 14.09.1999 and 30.09.1999 respectively concurring/accepting the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 against them (defendant Nos.4 and 5). 13. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 vide T.A. No.39 of 1992 passed on dated 14.09.1999 and 30.09.1999 respectively by the learned 1st Appellate Court, they (defendant Nos.4 and 5) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 arraying them as respondents. 14. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:- SA No.101 of 2000 Page 11 of 19 // 12 // Whether the sale of the property under Ext.D in favour of the appellants is void one? 15. I have already heard from the learned counsels for the appellants (defendant Nos.4 and 5) only, as none appeared from the side of the respondents for participating in the hearing of this 2nd appeal. 16. It is the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court that, all the suit properties described in Schedule “A” including Schedule “B” properties were the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the said properties have not at all been partitioned/divided between them (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3) as yet through any metes and bounds partition. 17. The defendant No.1 (father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3) has admitted in his pleadings about the selling of the Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia to the defendant Nos.4 and 5 through registered sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D after receiving consideration amount from them (defendant Nos.4 and 5), to which, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 have seriously disputed in their respective pleadings stating that, the Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia has been sold by the defendant No.1 illegally without any consideration amount and without any legal necessity and they (plaintiffs and defendant No.3) have not given their consent for selling the same. For which, according to them (plaintiffs and defendant SA No.101 of 2000 Page 12 of 19 // 13 // No.3), the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia is void. 18. The Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court have declared the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties as void, on the ground that, the defendant No.1 alone has no power to alienate the Schedule “B” Properties through sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D and the said sale deed vide Ext.D has been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the Schedule “B” properties without any consideration amount and without any legal necessity. It is the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court that, the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the co-owners (co-sharers) of all the suit properties described in Schedule “A” including Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia. 19. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when the vendor and the vendees of the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D i.e. defendant No.1 & defendant Nos.4 and 5 are admitting about the execution and registration of the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D in respect of the Schedule SA No.101 of 2000 Page 13 of 19 // 14 // “B” properties on payment of consideration amount, then, at this juncture, the third parties to the sale deed i.e. the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 have no locus standi to dispute the payment of consideration amount as well as its adequacy or inadequacy thereof. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (D) (i) 2016 (2) CCC 176 (S.C.) & 2016 (I) CLR (S.C.) 1225: Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah through LRs. Vrs. Muddasani Sarojana—Third party, could not have questioned the execution of the sale deed on the ground of passing of consideration. (Para 17) (ii) AIR 1977 (Orissa) 194: Sanatan Mohapatra & Others Vrs. Hakim Mohammad Kazim Mohmmad & Others—A stranger to a sale deed which is intended to be real or operative between the parties thereto cannot dispute the payment or non-payment of consideration and its adequacy or inadequacy. (Para 10) 20. When, it is the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the co- owners of the suit properties and when, the defendant No.1 being one of the co-owner of the Schedule “B” properties has sold the Schedule “B” properties (which is a tank/gadia) in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 by executing and registering the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D, then at this juncture, it cannot be held as per law that, the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D is invalid/void in toto. Because, it is the settled propositions of law, as per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 that, transfer by one co-owner of his/her undivided interest in the joint/undivided properties is not prohibited under law. SA No.101 of 2000 Page 14 of 19 // 15 // So, the transfer of property more than the transferor’s interest in the lands jointly held with others is not invalid in toto, but, it would be valid and operative to the extent of the transferor’s interest in the said lands. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) AIR 2016 (S.C.) 4564: Syscon Consultants P. Ltd. Vrs. M/s. Primella Sanitary Prod. P. Ltd. & Others— T.P.Act, 1882—Section 44—Transfer by co-owner of undivided interest in property is not prohibited. (ii) 1974 (I) CWR 222: Gananath Sahu & Another Vrs. Smt. Bulli Sahu & Others—T.P.Act, 1882—Sections 44 and 54—Transfer of property more than the transferor’s interest in lands jointly held with others is not invalid in toto. It would be valid and operative to the extent to transferor’s interest in the lands.(Para 10) 21. When, the defendant No.1 being a co-owner (co-sharer) of the Schedule “B” suit properties with the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 3 has sold the entire Schedule “B” properties to the defendant Nos.4 and 5 through sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D, then, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, the said sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D is not void/invalid in toto, but, the same would be valid and operative to the extent of the share of its vendor (defendant No.1) in the Schedule “B” properties. As per law, when, one of the co-sharers like the defendant No.1 sells his share in the joint properties, the purchasers like defendant Nos.4 and 5 SA No.101 of 2000 Page 15 of 19 // 16 // shall be the co-sharer of the suit properties with others in place of the seller. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- JBR Vol-XVII(1982) Part-II Page-43 : Sudam Das vrs. Krushna Mahakur—When one of the co-sharer sells his share the purchaser will become the co-sharer in place of the seller. (Para 4) 22. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, the plaintiffs have prayed for partition of the Schedule “A” properties (which includes Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia). As per law, a Tank/Gadia is impartible in nature. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by Hon’ble Court in the ratio of the following decision:- 2022 (I) CLR 25: Anu Charan Swain Vrs. Prahallad Swain—Tank—Its nature—To be not partible. (Para-8) 23. When, it is the undisputed findings of the 1st Appellate Court, confirming to the findings of the Trial Court that, the suit properties described in Schedule “A” including Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and when, as per the discussions and observations made above, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the co-owners of the suit properties and when, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the purchasers of the Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia from the defendant No.1, then, as per law, they SA No.101 of 2000 Page 16 of 19 // 17 // (defendant Nos.4 and 5) have become the co-owners of the Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia in place of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and when, as per law, the suit Schedule “B” Tank/Gadia is impartible in nature and when, the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court have declared the sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of Schedule “B” tank/gadia as void and also have declared that, the defendant Nos.4 and 5 have no interest in the Schedule “B” properties and when, the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court have passed the preliminary decree for partition of the Schedule “A” properties including the Schedule “B” tank/gadia between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making some interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court through this 2nd Appeal preferred by the appellants (defendant Nos.4 and 5) for some modifications thereof. For which, there is some merit in the appeal of the appellants. The same must succeed in part. 24. In result, this 2nd appeal preferred by the appellants (defendant Nos.4 and 5) is allowed in part on merit, but without cost. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 as well as by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.39 of SA No.101 of 2000 Page 17 of 19 // 18 // 1992 are set aside in part and the said judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and 1st Appellate Court are modified as follows:- the suit be and the same filed by the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.52 of 1987 is decreed preliminarily for partition on contest against the defendant Nos.4 and 5 and ex-parte against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 without cost. The properties described in Schedule “A” i.e. Plot No.750 Ac.0.52 decimals under Khata No.84 (specifically described in Schedule B) being a tank/gadia, which is impartible in nature is excluded from its physical division/distribution/partition. Out of all the properties described in Schedule “A” except Plot No.750 (described in Schedule B), the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitle for 1/5th share each. The parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 may amicably effect partition of all the properties of Schedule “A” other than Plot No.750 in proportion to their respective 1/5th share each as indicated above within a period of three months hence, failing which, any one among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 may apply to the Court for making the decree final. In the final decree proceeding, the Civil Court Commissioner to be appointed by the Court shall make division of all the properties described SA No.101 of 2000 Page 18 of 19 // 19 // in Schedule “A” except Plot No.750 (specifically described in Schedule “B”) amongst the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 by allotting their respective 1/5th share each in their favour and while so partitioning, he shall respect to the possession and convenience of the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 with a clarification that, the alienation made by them (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3) in the meantime from the properties described in Schedule “A” other than, Plot No.750 shall be adjusted from the respective shares of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3, who have so alienated. It is hereby declared that, the sell made by the defendant No.1 in respect of the “B” Schedule tank/gadia in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 through sale deed dated 05.11.1985 vide Ext.D is valid only to the extent of the 1/5th share of the defendant No.1 in the said “B” Schedule Tank/Gadia. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are declared as the co-sharers (co-owners) of the suit Tank/Gadia vide Plot No.750 under Khata No.84 (specifically described in Schedule “B”). Orissa High Court, Cuttack 20th of September, 2024/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Sep-2024 21:14:45 SA No.101 of 2000 (A.C. Behera), Judge Page 19 of 19