The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.233 of 1994 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Khaira Dei (Dead) and Others .... Appellants -versus- Dhaneswar Naik (Dead) and Others .... Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. D. P. Mohanty, Advocate. For Respondents - Mr. P. R. Barik, Advocate. {for respondent Nos.19(a) to 19(c)} CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :07.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 1 of 19 The respondent No.19 in this 2nd appeal was the plaintiff No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and respondent No.19 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987. The respondent Nos.1 to 18 in this 2nd appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 16 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and respondent Nos.1 to 18 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants and respondent No.19 in this 2nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 against the defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 18 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for partition. 4. As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) and defendant Nos.1 to 14 belong to one family. The
Legal Reasoning
defendant Nos.15 to 17 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties. 5. In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 14 given in the plaint is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:- S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 2 of 19 Genealogy Mani Naik Late Palau Late Durjodhan Late Niranjan Late Dasa Late Bhaiga Late Raghu Late Bhima Late Lochan Late Ratana Khaira (P-2) Saila Marua (D-14) Asali P-1) Bimbadhar (P-3) Bidyadhar (P-4) Late Kaibalya Subana Arjuna(D9) Judhistira (D 10) =Late Suhag(D-8) =Mathura (D12) Late Dundu Bhagaban (D7) =Banabasi (9Ka) & Upasi (9 Cha) Hara (D11) Dukhini Dei (D13) Saibari(9 Kha) Baikuntha (9 Ga) Basumati (9 Gha) Kamala (9 Uan) Gopi Sushila (D-6) Late Govinda Dhaneswar (D1) Late Ananda =Baita(D3) Rabi (D2) Giridhari (D4) =Gouri (D5) 6. According to the aforesaid genealogy, Mani Naik was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. Mani Naik died leaving behind his three sons i.e. Palau, Durjodhan and Niranjan. Raghu is the last male member in the branch of Palau. Raghu died leaving behind his two daughters i.e. Khaira (plaintiff No.2) and Saila. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 3 of 19 Saila died leaving behind her two sons i.e. Bimbadhar (plaintiff No.3) and Bidydhar (plaintiff No.4) The plaintiff No.1 is the representative of the branch of Durjodhan. The head of the third branch i.e. Niranjan died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Lochana and Ratana. The defendant Nos.7 to 13 are the representatives of the branch of Lochana. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the representatives of the branch of Ratana. 7. As per the case of the plaintiffs, though they (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13) are leaving in separate mess and they are possessing their joint and undivided suit properties separately more or less amicably, but the suit properties are their joint and undivided properties, because the same has not been divided/partitioned between them through any metes and bounds partition. Only they (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13) are possessing different portions of the suit properties unequally for the sake of their convenience. Therefore, the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13. The plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 being the representatives of the branch of Palau, they have 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The plaintiff No.1 being the representative of the branch of Page 4 of 19 S.A. No.233 of 1994 Durjodhan, she has 1/3rd share and defendant Nos.1 to 13 being the representatives of the branch of Niranjan, they are jointly entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The defendant Nos.15 to 17 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties from the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.7. When in spite of several requests of the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos.1 to 13 for metes and bounds partition of the joint and undivided suit properties, the defendant Nos.1 to 13 did not respond to their request, for which, disturbances were created between them concerning the possession of the suit properties and ultimately a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between them in respect of the suit properties in Mouza Badaneuli. So, without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Champua against the defendants praying for partition of the suit properties in order to carve out their legitimate share. 8. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985, the defendant Nos.8, 10 & 12 filed their joint written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 5 of 19 The defendant Nos.15 to 17 filed two separate written statements stating that, they have purchased some of the suit properties from the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 & defendant No.7 on payment of due consideration amount and they are possessing the same and their names have already been recorded in respect of their purchased properties as per the orders passed in mutation cases. Their specific claims were that, if there will be partition of the suit properties, their purchased properties shall be allotted in their favour adjusting the same from the shares of their vendors. Defendant No.9 (Kha) to 9 (Uan) filed their joint written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiffs taking their stands that, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have no right to seek partition of the suit properties. The suit properties were already partitioned earlier between the rightful owners and they have been possessing separately to their allotted shares from the suit properties. So, on the ground of previous partition, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Defendant No.14 filed her separate written statement taking her stands that, she belong to the branch of Durjodhan. As she is the daughter of Bhima and Bhima was the son of Bhaiga and Bhaiga was the son of Durjodhan and as her father Bhima died after 1956 i.e. after Page 6 of 19 S.A. No.233 of 1994 commencement of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, then she (defendant No.14) is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the suit properties. Accordingly, she (defendant No.14) claimed her share in the suit properties. 9. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 10 (ten) numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and the said issues are:- ISSUES (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Has defendant No.14 got 4 Kittas of land in ‘Kha’ schedule land by way of gift from her father at the time of her marriage? Is defendant No.14 entitled to get a share in the suit property? To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? Whether Bhaiga Naik died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and if so whether defendant No.14 is entitled to get a share in the suit property left by Bhaiga Naik? Is the suit maintainable? Is there any cause of action to file the suit? Was there a previous partition of the suit properties? Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Whether Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 14? To what share of land, plaintiffs are entitled to? 10. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985, they (plaintiffs) examined two witnesses including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon series of documents vide Exts.1 to 3. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the contesting defendants examined one witness on their behalf i.e. defendant No.10 as D.W.1 without proving any document from their side. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 7 of 19 One Sanatan Hembram was examined as Court witness and one document was exhibited at the instance of Court as Ext.I. 11. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue Nos.5, 9 & 10 against the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and answered issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 against the defendant No.14 and answered issue Nos.5 to 8 in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and against the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.14 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in the issues in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and against the defendant Nos.1 to 14, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 preliminarily for partition in part on contest as per its judgment and decree dated 18.02.1987 and 05.03.1987 respectively only allotting half share to the plaintiff No.1 without allotting any share to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 assigning the reasons that, “they (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 14) belong to Schedule Tribe community as per the Gazette Notification of the Government vide Ext.I having their sub-caste i.e. Gond in Serial No.22 at page 25, for which, as per the Section 2(2) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the law of inheritance and succession of the properties are not applicable to them in view of the exclusion made in Section 2(2) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, after the death of last male member in the branch of Palau i.e. Raghu, the properties of that branch had S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 8 of 19 devolved upon the members of the branch of Durjodhan and Niranjan. The plaintiff No.1 being the member of the branch of Durjodhan, she is entitled to get half share from the suit properties and the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 have no interest in the suit properties, as they belong to the branch of Palau.” 12. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 18.02.1987 and 05.03.1987 respectively passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 disentitling the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 to get any share from the suit properties, they (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) challenged the same preferring 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987 being the appellants against the defendant Nos.1 to 17 arraying them as respondents and also arraying plaintiff No.1 (Asali Bewa) as respondent No.19. 13. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as per its judgment and decree dated 22.07.1994 and 04.08.1994 respectively concurring/confirming the findings and observations made in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985. 14. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987 of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, they (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) challenged the same preferring this 2nd S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 9 of 19 appeal being the appellants against the defendant Nos.1 to 17 arraying them as respondent Nos.1 to 18 and also arraying plaintiff No.1 as respondent No.19. 15. When, during the pendency of this 2nd appeal, appellant Nos.1 & 2 expired, then their LRs have been substituted in their respective places as appellants. 16. This Second Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e.:- (i) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that, the share of Raghu (his 1/3rd share) in the suit properties had devolved to the surviving male members of other branches, when in the written statement, it was asserted that, there was partition by metes and bounds during Raghu’s life time? (ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in not allotting Raghu’s share to plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 who are legal heirs of Raghu i.e. his daughter and sons of pre-deceased daughter, after coming to the conclusion that, Raghu died in the State of separate status i.e. there was severance of status between all the branches prior to the death of Raghu? 17. I have already heard from learned counsel for the appellants and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.9(a) to 9(c). 18. When as per the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court in their respective judgments and decrees basing upon the pleadings, issues, evidence and materials on the record, both the aforesaid substantial questions of law are interlinked S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 10 of 19 having ample nexus with each other, then both the substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder. 19. The learned Trial Court as well as learned 1st Appellate Court both have passed the judgments and decrees disentitling the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 to get any share in the suit properties assigning only reason that, “they belong to Scheduled Tribe community, for which, as per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they (Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) are excluded/debarred from inheriting the interest in the suit properties left by their predecessor Raghu. Because, Raghu died leaving behind his two daughters i.e. Khaira (plaintiff No.2) and Saila. Saila died leaving behind her two sons i.e. plaintiff Nos.3 & 4. After the death of Raghu, the plaintiff No.2 (Khaira) and Saila being his two daughters, they were not entitled to succeed the interest of Raghu in the suit properties, as they (Khaira and Saila) are the daughters of a person i.e. Raghu, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community having their sub- caste Gond. Daughters of Gond community have no right of inheritance and succession of their father’s joint properties. For which, the interest in the suit properties left by Raghu devolved by way of survivorship upon the branch of Durjodhan and Niranjan. Therefore, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are not entitled to get any share in the suit properties.” 20. The pleadings of the parties are totally silent about the year of death of Raghu (predecessor of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4). The pleadings of the parties including the plaintiffs and defendants are also totally silent about the applicability or non-applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for their inheritance and succession in Page 11 of 19 S.A. No.233 of 1994 respect of their ancestral properties and applicability of any custom or old Hindu law to them. Whereas it is established from the evidence of the parties that, the plaintiffs belong to Scheduled Tribe community having their sub-caste Gond. 21. When, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 have been debarred/disentitled as per the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court to get their shares in the suit properties on the ground that, they belong to Schedule Tribe community having their sub-caste Gond assigning sole reason that, due to the bar of Section 2(2) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) are not entitled to get the share of their predecessor i.e. Raghu in the suit properties, then at this juncture, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence of the parties, it will be seen, whether plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 (appellants in the 2nd appeal) are entitled to get the share of Raghu or not in the suit properties, when undisputedly Raghu had 1/3rd share/interest in the suit properties. 22. The law concerning the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community like Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 specifically to the Gond Caste females has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 12 of 19 S.A. No.233 of 1994 (i) In a case between Mt. Nagi Vrs. Smt. Rajkunwar Saheba reported in AIR 1956 Nagpur 138 that, Persons belonging to the Naik-Gond by caste are governed by Hindu Law. (para 10) (ii) In a case between Rafail Uraon and another Vrs. Baiha Uraon and another reported in AIR 1957( Patna) 70 that, Aborigines of non-Hindu origin can become sufficiently Hinduised, so that in matters of inheritance and succession, they are prima facie governed by the Hindu law except so far as any custom at variance with such law is proved. (para 9) (iii) In a case between Babulal and Ors. Vrs. Resmabai Narayanrao Kaurati and Ors. reported in 2019 (1) CCC 344 (Bombay) (decided on 04.01.2019) that, neither the Succession Act nor the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is applicable to members of the Gond community. The customary law governing inheritance is not necessarily discriminatory against women. The customs governing inheritance are bound to vary from tribe to tribe, caste to caste and geographical area to geographical area. Rules of Succession may indeed provide different treatment, not necessarily equal and yet may not fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a female tribal, who is a natural legal heir seeks equal share in the property of her father or mother, it would be impermissible for the Court to start with the assumption that, the customary law governing the tribe excludes the females from inheritance and to then insist that the female tribal must plead and prove a custom that, she is not so excluded. It would be the burden of the person who asserts such exclusion from inheritance under the customary law to so plead and prove. Such view would further inconsonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 13 of 19 (iv) In a case between Kamala Neti (Dead) through LRs Vrs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others reported in 2022 (4) CCC 379 (SC) that, Female tribal succession—There may not be any justification to deny right of survivorship so far as female member of tribal is concerned. When daughter belonging to non-tribal is entitled to equal share in property of father, there is no reason to deny to such right to daughter of tribal community. Female Tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. When, there is conflict between law and equity, law would prevail. Equity can only supplement law. There is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant law. (v) In a case between Saravanan Vrs. Semmayee and Ors. reported in 2023 (2) Civ.C.C. 257 (Madras) (decided on 22.02.2023) that, Tribal women are not completely excluded, but the Statute intended to provide an opportunity to the tribal communities to adopt customs and practices in the matter of inheritance and in the absence of any such certainty in customs and practices, then undoubtedly the Hindu Succession Act alone should be applied for the purpose of inheritance and for providing equal share to tribal women. Mere non-issuance of notification or postponement of issuing notification cannot deprive the scheduled tribe women from getting their right in the family property, more specifically for equal share. Thus, Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be construed as a complete bar for invoking the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. But, it paves way for the Central Government to notify the trial communities, who have already moved forward and whose primitive customs and practice are not prevailing amongst the community for inheritance. In this matter, there is no whisper about such custom or practice in the community, in which the parties are living and in the absence of any such proof, the Trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that, S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 14 of 19 the parties to the suit are to be construed as Hindus for the purpose of application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and accordingly, granted the relief of partition and granted equal share to tribal women on par with their counter parts/male coparceners. (vi) In a case between Bahadur Vrs. Bratiya and others reported in AIR 2016 (Himachal Pradesh) 58 that, The daughters in a society, who are Hindu, cannot be left and segregated from main stream. They are entitled to equal share in the property. Needless to add that, gender discrimination violates fundamental rights. It concluded that, daughters in the tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit the properties in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per customs and usages. (vii) In a case between Ram Charan and Ors. Vrs. Sukhram and Ors. reported in 2025 (II) OLR 747 (SC) (decided on 17.07.2025) that, law by excluding the tribal daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender, but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right. A question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law. Unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. (Para 29) In keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overriding effect of Article 14 of the S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 15 of 19 Constitution, the appellant-plaintiff’s, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property. For which, the judgments of the Courts are accordingly set aside to that extent. Therefore, appellant’s daughters (plaintiff’s daughters) are entitled to equal share in the properties. (Para Nos.19, 20, 26, 27 & 29) 23. Here in this matter at hand, when the pleadings of the parties are silent about the applicability or non-applicability of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to them in the matter of their succession and inheritance and when their pleadings are also silent about the year of death of the predecessor of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 i.e Raghu Naik and when undisputedly, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the successors of Raghu Naik and when as per the undisputed genealogy of the parties, Raghu Naik had 1/3rd share/interest in the suit properties, then at this juncture, even though, the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) belong to Scheduled Tribe community having their sub-caste Gond, still then, there was no reason for the learned Trial Court as well as learned 1st Appellate Court to deny them (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) to inherit the 1/3rd share of Raghu in the suit properties as the successors of Raghu Naik in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions. For which, the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court in their respective judgments and S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 16 of 19 decrees disentitling the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) from getting any share in the suit properties are held as erroneous under law. When, it is held above that, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st appellate Court disentitling the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 in getting share from the suit properties are held as erroneous, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4). As such, there is merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4). The same is to be allowed. So, they (appellants-plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4) are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share in the suit properties. Due to the entitlement of the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) to get 1/3rd share in the suit properties, the entitlement of the plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.19 in the 2nd appeal) is to be reduced from 1/2 share to 1/3rd share. On the basis of the aforesaid findings and observations, the plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.19 in this 2nd appeal) is entitled to get 1/3rd share. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 (appellants in this 2nd appeal) are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share. The defendant Nos.2 to 13 are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 17 of 19 For which, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court are to be modified to the extent of the shares of the plaintiffs in the suit properties as indicated above. As per the discussions and observations made above, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) is to be allowed. 24. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) is allowed on contest. The findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 as well as learned 1st appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987 disentitling the appellants (plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) from getting any share in the suit properties are set aside. Because, they (appellants in this 2nd appeal- plaintiff Nos.2 to 4) have become entitled to get 1/3rd share jointly in the suit properties. 25. The suit be and the same vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 filed by the plaintiffs is decreed preliminarily for partition against the defendant Nos.1 to 13 on contest and dismissed against defendant Nos.14 to 17, but without cost. The plaintiff No.1 alone is entitled to get 1/3rd share from the suit properties. The plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share from the suit properties. S.A. No.233 of 1994 Page 18 of 19 The defendant Nos.2 to 13 are jointly entitled to get 1/3rd share in the suit properties with stipulation that, the alienations made from the suit properties by the parties in the meantime shall be adjusted from the shares of the respective parties, those have so alienated. The parties may amicably effect partition of the suit properties in proportion to their respective shares as indicated above within a period of 2 months hence, failing which, any one of the parties may apply to the Court for making the decree final. In the final decree proceeding, Civil Court Commissioner to be appointed by the Court shall make division of the suit properties 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. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 23.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:55 S.A. No.233 of 1994 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 19 of 19