Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK S.A. No.295 of 1991 In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908. *** Madan Mohan Sahu … Appellant. -VERSUS- Susila Sahu … Respondent. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Appellants : Mr. S. Mohanta, Advocate. On behalf of Mr. N.P. Pattnaik, Adv. For the Respondents : None. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 28.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.08.2025 S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 1 of 24 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment. 2. The appellant in this 2nd Appeal was the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 and respondent before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1989. The respondent in this 2nd Appeal was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 and appellant before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1989. 3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 was a suit for partition against the defendant (appellant in this 2nd Appeal). As per the case of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd Appeal) before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987, she (plaintiff) and the defendant are the descendants of their common ancestor Sankarsana Sahu. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 2 of 24 Their common ancestor Sankarsana Sahu had 3 wives.
Legal Reasoning
Biranchi was the son of Sankarsana Sahu through his first wife. The 2nd wife of Sankarsana Sahu died issueless. The plaintiff is the only daughter of the 3rd wife of Sankarsana Sahu. Panchaphula was the third wife of Sankarsana Sahu. The son of Sankarsana Sahu through his first wife i.e. Biranchi died in the year 1979 leaving behind the defendant i.e. Madan Mohan Sahu as his only successor. The properties described in Schedule “B”, “C” & “D” are the suit properties. The “B” and “C” schedule suit properties corresponds to properties covered under Sabik Khata No.73 & 104/2. The properties covered under Sabik Khata No.73 & 104/2 being the ancestral properties of Sankarsana Sahu, the said properties had fallen in the share of Sankarsan Sahu. As such, Sankarsan Sahu was the owner of “B” and “C” schedule suit properties. The “D” schedule suit properties were the self- acquired properties of Sankarsan Sahu. The son of Sankarsana Sahu i.e. Biranchi Sahu (father of the defendant) had married in village Panmura in Bargarh S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 3 of 24 district and was residing in his inlaws house at Panmura with his wife and son i.e. defendant. For which, the plaintiff, her husband and her mother were looking after the comforts of Sankarsana Sahu staying with him. The plaintiff and her husband were also looking after the cultivation of the properties of Sankarsana Sahu i.e. suit properties. Because, Sankarsana Sahu being old was not physically fit to look after the properties. Out of love and affection, Sankarsana gifted Ac.0.65 dec. of land out of Khata No.73 in favour of plaintiff through registered gift deed in the year 1979. The mother of plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula (third wife of Sankarsana) died in the year, 1982. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the defendant chalked out a plan for recording the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" illegally in his name exclusively correcting the same from the name of his grandfather Sankarsana Sahu to his name even during the life time of his grandfather Sankarsana Sahu and plaintiff. So, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and her father Sankarsana Sahu, the defendant managed to record the suit properties descibred in Schedule "B" & "C" illegally in his S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 4 of 24 name correcting the same from the name of Sankarsana Sahu to his name through Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981 even in the absence of any deed of transfer of the said suit properties by Sankarsana Sahu in his favour. Thereafter, Sankarsana Sahu died in the year, 1984. After the death of Sankarsana Sahu, the defendant expressed his desire to possess the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" exclusively debarring the plaintiff from possessing the same on the strength of the R.o.Rs. through mutation created illegally in his name exclusively on the basis of Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981. On the strength of the said illegal R.o.Rs of “B” & “C” Schedule Properties through Mutation Case Nos.442 & 443 of 1981, he (defendant) claimed his exclusive ownership over the suit properties. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiff requested defendant for partition of her half share from the suit properties, to which, he (defendant) did not agree. Therefore, without getting any way, she (plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 against the defendant praying for partition of her half share from the suit properties. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 5 of 24 4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987, the defendant contested the same taking his stands specifically that, the plaintiff is not the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu through his third wife. Because, Sankarsana Sahu had married only one wife known as Urmila, through whom Biranchi (father of the defendant ) was born. Biranchi died in the year 1947. The mother of the plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula had married to one Ekadasi Sahu of Kharmal and she has other issues including the plaintiff. The name of the father of Sankarsana Sahu was Pitabas Sahu. Pitabas Sahu died leaving behind his three sons i.e. Sankarsana Sahu, Dhobei Sahu and Shyamsundar Sahu. He (defendant) is the only successor of Sankarsana. The plaintiff is not the successor of Sankarsana Sahu. For which, the plaintiff has no interest in the suit properties. Therefore, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties is not maintainable under law. He (defendant) had never persuaded or misrepresented Sankarsana Sahu for recording of the suit properties in his name from his name. Before mutation of the suit properties to his name, S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 6 of 24 Sankarsana Sahu was in a fit state of mind. The mother of the plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula was the Sali (Sister-in-law) of Dhobei Sahu. Dhobei Sahu was the brother of Sankarsana Sahu. During course of coming to the house of Dhobei Sahu, as his sister-in-law, Panchaphula developed intimacy with Sankarsana Sahu. Due to such relationship, Panchaphula eloped from her husband’s house with a small baby i.e. plaintiff in the year, 1994 with Sankarsana Sahu and started living with Sankarsana Sahu. In order to keep the prestige of Sankarsana Sahu, out of excess love, he (Sankarsana Sahu) was calling plaintiff as his “daughter” and he (Sankarsana Sahu) was giving her (plaintiff) fatherly affection since her babyhood and also brought up her (plaintiff) and gave her in marriage in the year, 1953 at village Talapadar. As such, the plaintiff is not the daughter and successor of Sankarsana Sahu, but she is the daughter of one Ekadasi Sahu. For which, the plaintiff has no interest in the suit properties. So, the suit for partition filed by her (plaintiff) is liable to be dismissed. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 7 of 24 5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 8 numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 and the said issues are: ISSUES Is the suit maintainable? Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file this suit? Is the suit barred by time? Whether Panchaphula was the married wife of Sankarsana 1. 2. 3. 4. and plaintiff was born through them? 5. Whether the properties gifted to the plaintiff and the defendant by Sankarsana in different times were valid and those properties are liable to be excluded from partition? 6. record for partition? 7. the suit properties and entitled to the share as claimed? 8. Whether plaintiff have got any right, title and interest over Whether all properties of the family have been brought to To what other reliefs? 6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief i.e. partition sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant, she (plaintiff) examined 5 witnesses from her side including her as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 7 on her behalf. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant examined 3 witnesses on his behalf including him as D.W.1 and exhibited several documents vide from his side vide Exts.A to Z/13. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 8 of 24 7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.2,3,4,5 & 7 in favour of the plaintiff, but whereas answered issue Nos.1,6 & 8 against the plaintiff and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in issue Nos.1,6 & 8 against the plaintiff, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.1 of 1987 on contest as per its Judgment & Decree dated 23.12.1988 & 07.01.1989 respectively assigning the reasons that, “though the plaintiff has been able to establish herself as the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu and she has share in the suit properties, but when the plaintiff has not brought all the joint properties into the common hotspot for partition, then, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is bad for partial partition. So, on that ground, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is dismissed on contest.” 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit vide T.S No.1 of 1987 of the plaintiff passed by the learned Trial Court, she (plaintiff) challenged the same preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 9 of 24 No.2/1989 being the appellant against the defendant arraying him (defendant) as respondent. 9. After hearing from the both the sides, the learned First Appellate Court allowed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.2/1989 filed by the plaintiff and set aside the Judgment & Decree of the dismissal of the suit vide T.S. No.1/1987 passed by the learned Trial Court as per its Judgment & Decree dated 28.08.1991 & 21.09.1991 respectively assigning the reasons that, “due to non-challenge to the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff in issue Nos.2,3,4,5 & 7 by the defendant, it is established that, the plaintiff is the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu through his third wife Panchaphula and defendant is the grandson of Sankarsana Sahu being the son of his son Biranchi Sahu and as such, the plaintiff and defendant both are the successors of Sankarsana Sahu. When it is the own case of the defendant as per his pleadings that, Sankarsana Sahu died after 1981 i.e. after initiation of the Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.442/1981 & 443/1981 by the defendant and the “B” & “C” schedule suit properties were the ancestral properties of Sankarsana and when it is established that, the plaintiff and defendant both are the successors of Sankarsana Sahu, then, S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 10 of 24 as per notional partition according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and the defendant is entitled for 3/4th share in the Schedule "B" & "C" suit properties and accordingly, the learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit vide T.S. No.1/1987 of the plaintiff entitling her (plaintiff) to get 1/4th share from the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties and entitling the defendant to get 3/4th share from the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties clarifying that, the “D” Schedule suit properties are not liable for partition as the said properties were the self-acquired properties of Sankarsana Sahu, to which, Sankarsana Sahu has transferred through different gift deeds during his life time.” 10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.1991 & 21.09.1991 respectively passed by the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No.2/1989 in setting aside the Judgment & Decree of the dismissal of the suit vide T.S. No.1/1987 passed by the learned Trial Court, he (defendant) challenged the same preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellant against the plaintiff arraying her (plaintiff) as respondent. 11. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 11 of 24 passed in Mutation When the suit properties described I. in Schedule "B" & "C" were mutated in the name of the defendant exclusively as per Case orders Nos.442/1981 & 443/1981 and when the separate R.o.Rs vide Khata Nos.105/66 and 105/67 were prepared through correction from Khata Nos.73 & 104/2 i.e. from the name of Sankarsana Sahu and when order passed in Mutation Case No.442/1981 and 443/1981 have not been vitiated/set aside and when there is no material in record to show, the said R.o.Rs vide Khata No.105/66 and 105/67 were prepared in the name of defendant through misrepresentation, then, whether, the learned First Appellate Court was justified under law to hold that, the “B” & “C” schedule suit properties are the joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant and the same is liable for partition? 2. and the observations made by the learned First Appellate Court holding that, the gift deed vie Ext.C executed by Sankarsana in favour of the plaintiff is valid? findings whether 12. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant (defendant) only, as none participated from the side of the respondent (plaintiff) in the hearing of this 2nd Appeal. 13. When the aforesaid two formulated substantial questions of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each other according to the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in their S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 12 of 24 respective Judgments & Decrees on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, then, both the substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder: The findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in its Judgment & Decree in issue No.4 i.e., the plaintiff is the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu through his third wife Panchaphula has already been reached in its finality, because, the defendant has not challenged the said findings made by the learned Trial Court in issue No.4 either by filing an appeal or by filing any cross objection in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.02 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff. When, the above findings given by the learned Trial Court in issue No.4 has already been reached in its finality between the parties due to non-challenge to the same by the defendant, then, at this juncture, it is established lawfully that, the plaintiff (respondent) is the daughter of Sankarsan Sahu and the defendant (appellant) is the grandson of Sankarsan Sahu. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 13 of 24 It has also been established according to pleadings and evidence of the parties on the basis of concurrent findings on facts by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court after appreciation of pleadings and evidence of the parties that, "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties were the ancestral properties of ancestor of the parties i.e. Sankarsana Sahu and the said Sankarsana Sahu expired in the year 1984 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as his successors. For which, after the death of Sankarsana Sahu, the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties left by Sankarsana Sahu, devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant simultaneously, as father of the defendant i.e. Biranchi Sahu (son of Sankarsan Sahu) and mother of the plaintiff i.e. Panchaphula Sahu (wife of Sankarsan Sahu) have expired. 14. Now, the question arises, whether the recording of the suit properties described in "B" & "C" Schedule of the plaint in the name of the defendant after its mutation vide Khata Nos.105/66 & 105/67 exclusively on the basis of orders passed in Mutation Case S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 14 of 24 Nos.442/1981 and 443 of 1981 correcting the same from the name of Sankarsan Sahu to his name during the lifetime of Sankarsana Sahu without any deed of conveyance in favour of the defendant and without the consent of Sankarsana Sahu shall debar/exclude/preclude the plaintiff from claiming partition of her legitimate share from the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties by filing the suit for partition vide T.S. No.1 of 1987? On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (I) In a case between Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2021 (4) CCC 147 (S.C) (para No.5) that, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. (II) In a case between Mukund Vs. Sulakshna Bokare & Others reported in 2018 (1) Civ.C.C (D.B.) (MP) 269 (Para No.23) that, simply, mutation of name of defendant in revenue record is not sufficient to presume the ouster of plaintiff. As, the plaintiff is the co-owner of the defendant. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 15 of 24 (III) 1975 (1) CWR 335: that, mutation entries should not be expected to be determined jointness or separation of properties. (IV) In a case between Chandrashekhar Rai Vs. Prabhu Nandan Kunwar reported in 2015 (1) CCC 651 (Patna) (para No.6) that, any entry in the record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes rights nor does an omission of entry affects the rights of the parties. (V) In a case between Raghunath Prusty & Others Vs. Raghunath Baliarsingh reported in 1993 (I) OLR 505 (para No.8) that, Record of Right—Earlier record of right indicate that, the disputed property was joint property—In absence of proof as to how it came to the hands of one co-sharer, exclusive recording in the subsequent record of rights will not wipe off the interest of other co-sharers.
Legal Reasoning
(VI) In a case between Narayan Joshi & Another Vs. Smt. Pramila Panda reported in 2004 (1) CLR 169 (Para No.8) that, when property inherited by widow and daughter, but only recorded in the name of widow, such recording does not extinguishes right, title, interest of the daughter. (VII) In a case between Maheswar Bagha & Others Vs. Baikuntha Bagha reported in 2018 (1) OJR 596 that, joint family property should not be mutated to the name of one, unless there is partition by meets and bounds. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 16 of 24 15. Here in this suit Appeal at hand, when it is established that, after the death of Sankarsana Sahu, the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" of the plaint devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant simultaneously, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the recording of the suit properties exclusively under Khata Nos.105/66 and 105/67 in the name of the defendant through the orders passed in Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981 omitting the name of the plaintiff therefrom the same cannot wipe out the interest of the plaintiff in the said suit properties. For which, in other words, as per law, it is held that, even though, the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" of the plaint have been recorded in the name of the defendant exclusively through Mutation Case Nos.442/1981 and 443/1981, still then, as per law, the said “B” & “C” Schedule suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendant and the same are liable for partition between them (plaintiff and defendant). S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 17 of 24 It is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments & Decrees that, Sankarsana Sahu died after 1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as his successors and as such, Sankarsana Sahu has died after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in its Judgment & Decree that, according to notional partition on the basis of the provisions of law envisaged in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff being the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get 1/4th share and the defendant being the son’s son of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get 3/4th share in the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties. The aforesaid findings and observations made above by the learned First Appellate Court in its Judgment & Decree that, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share and the defendant is entitled to get 3/4th share cannot be sustainable under law in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the 3 Judges Bench Decision of the Apex Court S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 18 of 24 between Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others decided on 11.08.2020 that, the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005) confers status of coparcener on the daughters born before or after amendment in the same manner as the sons with same rights and liabilities. So, the daughters would step into the coparcener as that of sons by taking birth. Therefore, amended provisions of Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as amended vide Amendment Act, 2005 provides equal right to daughter with that of the son in the properties having its retrospective affect and as such, the purpose behind the amendment in 2005 is to give equal right of inheritance to the sons and daughters of a coparcener by virtue of birth. So, in view of the above propositions of law clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the above decision, the legitimate shares of the plaintiff and defendant in the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" is equal as per law. Because, the plaintiff being the daughter of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get half share and the defendant being the son’s S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 19 of 24 son of Sankarsana Sahu is entitled to get half share in the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties, but, the learned First Appellate Court has not distributed (carved out) the share of the plaintiff and defendant in the “B” & “C” schedule suit properties according to law. For which, the allotment of shares made by the learned First Appellate Court between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties is not in conformity with the law for the reasons assigned above. Therefore, there is necessity under law for making interference with the same concerning the allotment of shares in respect of the “B” & “C” schedule suit properties between the plaintiff and defendant made by the learned 1st Appellate Court in its Judgment and Decree through this 2nd Appeal filed by the defendant . Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, in a suit for partition like the suit at hand vide T.S .No.1 of 1987, the status of all the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant are same and equal. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 20 of 24 So, as per law, in a partition suit like this suit at hand, both the plaintiff and defendant can be treated as plaintiff. For which, there is no impediment under law for distribution/allotment of lawful shares between the plaintiff and defendant in this 2nd Appeal, even though, this 2nd Appeal has been filed by the defendant only. It is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court that, the properties described in Schedule “D” of the plaint were the self-acquired properties of Sankarsana Sahu and during his life time, he (Sankarsana Sahu) has transferred the same by way of gift, for which, the said “D” schedule properties are not liable for partition between the plaintiff and defendant. The above concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in respect of the “D” schedule properties of the plaint are not unreasonable. For which, the question of interfering with such particular findings of both the Courts in respect of “D” schedule suit properties are not interferable in this 2nd Appeal. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 21 of 24 16. This 2nd Appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition. When it is the established propositions of law as clarified above, in a suit for partition, the status of all the parties in the suit are as good as plaintiff and if the suit for partition is allowed, then, it is the duty of the Court, to distribute the properties between the parties lawfully according to their entitlements therein as per law. For which, by applying the above settled propositions of law and interfering with the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in respect of the distribution of shares between the parties in respect of "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties as per the discussions and observations made above, it is held that, though this 2nd Appeal filed by the defendant cannot be allowed for the acceptance of his claim for making interference with the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in order to non-suit the plaintiff from her claim for partition, but there is justification under law for holding in this 2nd Appeal for the reasons assigned above that, the defendant and plaintiff i.e. the appellant and respondent in this 2nd Appeal are entitled to get S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 22 of 24 half share each from the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties, but, they are not entitled to get 3/4th and 1/4th shares respectively in the same as per the findings of the learned First Appellate Court. So, for the reasons assigned above, this 2nd Appeal filed by the defendant lacks any merit in his favour. For which, this 2nd Appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed with the modification of shares in “B” & “C” schedule properties allotted by the learned 1st Appellate Court in its Judgment and Decree as clarified above. 17. Therefore, out of the properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" of the suit properties, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for half share each with the stipulation that, the alienation made by the parties in the meantime therefrom shall be adjusted from their respective shares. The parties i.e. the plaintiff and defendant may amicably effect the partition of the "B" & "C" Schedule suit properties in proportion to their respective shares as indicated above within a period of 3 moths hence, failing which, any of the party may apply the Trial Court for making the decree final. S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 23 of 24 18. In the final decree proceeding, the Civil Court Commissioner to be appointed by the Court shall make division of the suit properties described in Schedule "B" & "C" of the plaint amongst them (plaintiff & defendant) 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.
Decision
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 20. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated. 21. As such, the Judgment of the 2nd Appeal is pronounced. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 26 .08. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak (RK) Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 26-Aug-2025 19:22:55 S.A. No.295 of 1991 Page 24 of 24