The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.17 of 2021 An application under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Ananga Udaya Meher & Another …. Appellants -versus- Arun Kumar Agarwal …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. B. Pradhan, Advocate. Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate. Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate. Mr. A. Dash, Advocate. Mr. A. Khandelwal, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :08.12.2023 :: Date of Judgment :16.01.2024 1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment. 2. The appellants of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 and they were the appellants in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.02 of 2018. R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 1 of 19 {{ 2 }} The respondent of this 2nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 and he was the respondent in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A No.02 of 2018. 3. The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 4. The suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint are Ac.0.198 decimals out of Ac.0.375 decimals from Plot No.901 and Ac.0.188 decimals of Plot No.902 in total Ac.0.386 Decimals under Khata No.47 in Mouza Kantabanji “Kha” under Kantabanji P.S. in the district of Bolangir.
Legal Reasoning
The case of the plaintiff as per the averments made in his plaint was that, the suit properties were originally belonged to Suban Majhi. While Suban Majhi was the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties, he (Suban Majhi) sold the same to Gopichan Sahu on dated 25.08.1959 by executing and registering a sale deed bearing No.963/1959 and delivered the possession thereof. After purchasing the suit properties from Suban Majhi, Gopichan Sahu became the exclusive owner of the same. But Gopichan Sahu died leaving behind his only successor i.e. Ramachandra Sahu. So, after the death of Gopichan Sahu, the suit properties devolved upon Ramachandra Sahu and Ramachandra Sahu possessed the same being the owner Page 2 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 3 }} thereof. Accordingly, the said suit property were recorded in the name of Ramachandra Sahu. That Ramachandra Sahu, sold the suit properties to Lingaraj Mishra by executing and registering a sale deed on dated 25.12.1967 and delivered the possession thereof and accordingly, Lingaraj Mishra became the owner of the suit properties. So, in the major settlement, the suit properties were recorded in the name of Lingaraj Mishra under Khata No.47, Plot No.901 and 902 as per R.o.R vide Ext.1 which was published in the year 1977. The said Lingaraj Mishra died leaving behind his widow wife i.e. Sukanti Devi Mishra and one son i.e. Bijay Kumar Mishra and 4 daughters namely, Sarojini Mishra, Soudamini Mihsra, Sobhagini Mishra and Tapaswini Mishra. After the death of Lingaraj Mishra, the suit properties devolved upon his aforesaid successors i.e. upon his widow wife, son and 4 daughters and accordingly, widow wife, son and 4 daughters of Lingaraj Mishra possessed the properties as the owners thereof, but the aforesaid successors of Lingaraj Mishra sold the suit properties to the plaintiff Arun Kumar Agrawal by executing and registering a sale deed on dated 04.05.2011 bearing No.10341100820 and delivered possession thereof. After purchasing the suit properties from the above successors of the Lingaraj Mishra, the plaintiff Arun Kumar Agrawal possessed the same being the exclusive owner thereof. As the plaintiff Arun Kumar Agarwal is a businessman and his house is Page 3 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 4 }} situated 2 kilometers away from the suit properties, for which, he was not able to visit the suit properties regularly, so, by taking the aforesaid temporary absence of the plaintiff from looking after the suit properties, the defendants forcibly constructed boundary wall over the suit properties behind the back of the plaintiff. But, when the plaintiff came to know about the same on 01.09.2012, he along with his one vendor i.e. Bijay Kumar Mishra went to the suit properties and opposed the above the illegal actions of the defendants on the suit properties, to which, they (defendants) did not pay any heed. So, the plaintiff approached the local police, but the police did not take any action against the defendants. Therefore, on dated 09.09.2012, the plaintiff took step for demarcation of the suit properties by Amin in presence of the villagers and the defendants and came to know that the defendants have illegally constructed boundary wall on the suit properties which is the properties of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff requested the defendants for demolition of the constructed boundary wall on the suit properties, to which, the defendants did not obey, for which, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 against the defendants and prayed for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties and also prayed for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants. R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 4 of 19 {{ 5 }} 5. Having been noticed from the court in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012- 2013, the defendants filed their joint written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff by taking their stands inter alia therein denying to the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint by stating that, the suit properties along with other properties were the properties of one Jagannath Majhi. The said Jagannath Majhi sold two plots vide Plot Nos.253 and 903 to their grandfather namely, Chakradhar Meher in the year 1958 through oral sale for a consideration of Rs.80/- and the said Jagannath Majhi had delivered the possession of plot Nos.253 and 903 to the grandfather of the plaintiffs i.e. Chakradhar Meher. At that time, the above two plots i.e. plot Nos.253 and 903 and as well as the suit properties were lying vacant. After purchasing plot Nos.253 and 903 from Jagannath Majhi, through oral sale, their grandfather Chakradhar Meher constructed compound wall around the above two plots bearing Nos.253 and 903 along with the suit properties. Accordingly, since the year 1958, their grandfather Chakradhar Meher along with his family members have/had been possessing the suit properties keeping hostile interest with the real owner peacefully and to the knowledge of the real owner. In the Hal settlement, the above purchased properties of their grandfather Chakradhar Meher i.e. Sabik plot No.253 and 903 were recorded under Hal Khat No.58 in the name of Jagannath Majhi and the possession of Ramachandra Sahoo son of Gopichan Sahoo was noted in R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 5 of 19 {{ 6 }} the remarks column thereof. Therefore, the father of the defendant had filed a suit vide T.S. No.84/1986 before the court of Munsif, Titlagarh praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over plot No.253 & 903 and that suit vide T.S. No.84/1986 of the father of the defendants was decreed on 03.09.1986. The defendants have mutated the plot Nos.253 & 903 in to their names and after mutation, the R.o.R of the said two plots has been prepared in their names under Khata No.224. They (defendants) have no knowledge about the sale of the suit properties to the plaintiff by the successors of Lingaraj Mishra. The plaintiff has not taken the delivery the possession of the suit properties at any point of time. The suit properties are within the boundary of the defendants house. As the suit properties were lying vacant in the year 1958 and their grand father Chakradhar Meher had raised boundary wall around the suit properties and they (defendants) have planted tress like Teak, Akashia & other fruit bearing trees and the said trees are more than 30 years old, for which, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest and possession over the same. As such, they (defendants) and their family members are in possession over the suit properties since the year, 1958 by raising trees on the same for more than 30 years. For which, the plaintiff has no interest on the same. There was no demarcation at all to the suit properties and as such, they (defendants) have perfected their right, title and interest over the suit properties by R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 6 of 19 {{ 7 }} way of adverse possession. For which, the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit against them (defendants). The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. As the plaintiff as well as his so-called vendors had/have no right, title and interest & possession over the suit properties, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against them (defendants) with cost. 6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 6 numbers of issues were framed by the trial court in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 and the said issues are: Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Whether the suit is maintainable? Whether there is any cause of action of the plaintiff for the suit? Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land? Whether the defendants have unauthorizedly constructed a boundary wall over the suit land and the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the same? Whether the suit is barred by limitations? To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, he (plaintiff) examined altogether 4 numbers of witnesses including him as P.W.1 from his side and relied upon series of documents on his behalf vide Ext.1 to 10. R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 7 of 19 {{ 8 }} But, on the contrary, the defendants examined 7 witnesses from their side including the defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and relied upon several documents on their behalf vide Ext.A to K. 8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made by the trial court in all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on contest against the defendants declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties and directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff by removing the boundary wall around the suit properties vide its Judgment and decree dated 01.09.2018 and 22.09.2018 respectively assigning the reasons that, the suit properties were originally belonged to Suban Majhi and the said Suban Majhi sold the suit properties to Gopichan Sahu through R.S.D. No.963 dated 25.08.1959 and that Gopichan Sahu died leaving behind his son Ramachandra Sahu. After the death of Gopichan Sahu, the suit properties devolved upon Ramachandra Sahu and Ramachandra Sahu became the owner thereof. Therefore, the R.o.R. of the suit properties were prepared in the name to Ramchandra Sahoo and that Ramchandra Sahoo sold the suit properties to Lingaraj Mishra. Then, the suit properties were recorded R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 8 of 19 {{ 9 }} in the name of Lingaraj Mishra under Khata No.47. After the death of Lingaraj Mishra, his successors i.e. his widow wife, son and his 4 daughters sold the suit properties to the plaintiff on dated 04.05.2011 vide Ext.3 and accordingly, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit properties. For which, the defendants have no manner of interest in the same. The claim of title of the defendants over the suit properties through adverse possession has become inacceptable under law. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration of title over the suit properties and also entitled for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants. For which, the trial court directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff by removing the boundary wall around the suit properties. 9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 01.09.2018 and 22.09.2018 respectively passed in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, they (defendants) challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No. 02 of 2018 being the appellants against the plaintiff by arraying him (plaintiff) as respondent. After hearing from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed to the aforesaid 1st Appeal vide R.F.A No.2 of 2018 of the defendants concurring/accepting the findings and observations made by R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 9 of 19 {{ 10 }} the trial court in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 vide its Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 and 13.12.2019 respectively. 10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.2 of 2018 of the defendants, they (defendants) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the plaintiff by arraying him (plaintiff) as respondent. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law, that is: Substantial question of law Whether the appellants have perfected their title over the suit properties through the oral sale coupled with delivery of possession in the year 1985; and whether the suit property is the same property involved in the earlier T.S. No.84 of 1986? 11.
Legal Reasoning
I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, he (plaintiff) is the purchaser of the suit properties covered under plot Nos.901 and 902 through R.S.D. No.10341100820 dated 04.05.2011 vide Ext.3 from the successors of the recorded owner thereof i.e. from the successors of Lingaraj Mishra. Accordingly, the plaintiff is claiming his ownership over the suit properties as a purchaser of the same through sale deed vide Ext.3. The defendants have not disputed/denied to the execution and registration of the said sale deed vide Ext.3 by the successors of Lingaraj Page 10 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 11 }} Mishra in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have also not disputed about the standing of the Hal R.o.R of the suit properties vide Ext.1 under Khata No.47 in the name of the predecessor of the vendors of the plaintiff i.e. Lingaraj Mishra. 13. In the pleadings of the defendants i.e. in the written statement of the defendants, they (defendants) have claimed their title and possession over the suit properties in two ways i.e. through oral purchase in the year 1958 and as well as through perfection of title thereon by way of adverse possession. Their further plea is that, the suit properties are the same properties, those were involved in the earlier suit vide T.S. No.84 of 1986. As per the above pleas of the defendants in their written statement, they (defendants) have claimed their title over the suit properties through oral sale and as well as through adverse possession simultaneously. The above both pleas of the defendants are mutually inconsistent and destructive with each other. As per law, the claim of title over the suit properties through oral sale and as well as through adverse possession cannot be taken simultaneously by the defendants. Because, the defendants cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by taking the pleas in one breath that, they (defendants) are the owners of the suit properties through purchase and in R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 11 of 19 {{ 12 }} alternative, they have perfected their title over the suit properties by way of adverse possession. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the apex court in the ratio of the following decisions: (I) (II) (III) 2007 (1) CCC 199(A.P.)—Arjuna Subramanya Reddy Vs. Arjuna China Thangavelu (Para Nos.9 & 12)—Limitation Act, 1963— Adverse Possession—Title Suit—Defendants claimed to have acquired possession of suit property by an oral sale from vendor of plaintiff/appellant thirty years ago—Held, once respondent-defendant pleaded contract in form of an oral sale, he (defendant) was precluded from taking plea of adverse possession. 2021 (2) Civil Court Cases 712 (Chh.)—Phul Bai Vs. Samaru Ram Sahu & Others Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—Plea of adverse possession has to be clearly set up as to from which date it commenced and became hostile to rightful owner of property in question. Plea of adverse possession and title are mutually inconsistent as plea of adverse possession does not begin to operate unless and until, plea of title is given up. 2012 (2) Civ.L.T 256 (Patna)—Bhanso Singh & Others Vs. Chandra Shekhar Singh & Others Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—Defendants cannot be allowed to raise plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession over suit land without giving up their claim of title over suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 10.07.1956, as both pleas would be mutually destructive. (IV) 2020 (II) CLR (SC) 577—Narasamma & Others Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) & Others Indian Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 & 65—Plea of title and adverse possession cannot be taken simultaneously from the same date. (V) (2022) 10 SCC 217—Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Another Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 & 65—The defendants cannot blow hot and cold that, they had purchased the property through registered sale deed in one breath and in the alternative they had perfected the title by way of adverse possession. Page 12 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 13 }} 14. As per the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the above both the pleas i.e. claim of title through oral sale and claim of title through adverse possession taken by the defendants in this suit at hand are mutually inconsistent and destructive with each other. When, the defendants are precluded under law to take the above both the pleas simultaneously, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts & Apex court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, both the pleas of the defendants regarding their title over the suit properties against the plaintiff have become inacceptable under law. 15. It is the settled propositions of law that, without admitting the title of the plaintiff, the defendants cannot take the plea of adverse possession over the suit properties. So, as per law, taking up of the plea of adverse possession by the defendants over the suit properties against the plaintiff itself is an admission of the defendants to the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties. So, by claiming title through adverse possession by the defendants, they (defendants) have indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions. R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 13 of 19 {{ 14 }} (I) (II) 2008 (3) CCC 173 (P & H)—Jagat Singh & Others Vs. Srikishan Dass & Others—Suit for possession filed by plaintiff—Defendant raised plea of adverse possession over the suit land—Held, once a plea of adverse possession is raised, it pre-supposes the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. 2008 (4) CCC 239 (P & H)—Gurbax Singh Vs. Karnail Singh— Adverse Possession—The plea of adverse possession of the defendant necessarily implies the admission of the title of the plaintiff. (III) 2005 (3) CCC 167(Mad.)—Pappayammal Vrs. Palanisamy & Others—Plea of adverse possession—A party can plead adverse possession, only when, he admits that, another party has got title. It is very fundamental in law that, unless and until all the essentials of adverse possession are specifically pleaded and proved by the party, the claim of title of such party through adverse possession over the suit properties, shall not be admissible under law. Therefore, in order to establish the title through adverse possession, it was required for the defendants to specifically plead in their pleadings (written statements) that on which date they had entered into the possession over the suit properties and from which date their possession became adverse to the true owner over the suit properties i.e. to the plaintiff and on which date their adverse possession had matured (ripened) into their full ownership over the suit properties on the basis of their adverse possession. But, though the defendants have pleaded in their pleadings regarding their continuous possession over the suit properties, but there is R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 14 of 19 {{ 15 }} no pleading, when their possession over the suit properties became hostile to the true owner and when their hostile possession had ripened into their ownership. So only by stating about their continuous possession over the suit properties without stating anything in their pleadings and evidence, on which date their possession became adverse to the plaintiff and on which date their possession had ripened to ownership, they (defendants) cannot and shall not be able to establish their title over the suit properties through adverse possession. 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) (II) (III) 2006 (1) CCC-184 (Bombay) Dashrath Ganpat Dhote and Others Vs. Gajanan Mahadeorao Wankheda. Plea of adverse possession raised by defendants—Evidence revealed that, defendants did not know as to when their possession had title by adverse they perfected commenced and when possession—Simply because defendants were in long possession that per-se was not sufficient to draw an inference of adverse possession. their 2020 (4) Civ.C.C. Page-13 (Punjab & Haryana)—Mangtu @ Matu (deceased) Through LRs. Vs. Jogi Ram (deceased) Through LRs. Indian Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 & 65—Adverse possession— For proving acquisition of title by way of adverse possession, party has to plead and prove as to when his possession became adverse. 2017 (3) Apex Court Judgments 478 (SC) & 2017 (II) CLR (SC) 1097—Dharampal (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. Punjab Wakf Board & Others. 2017 Supp. Civ.C.C. 267 (SC)—Dharam Pal Vs. Punjab Wakf Board Indian Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 & 65—Adverse Possession— Not pleaded as to from which date possession became adverse, not Page 15 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 16 }} pleaded when adverse possession completed and ripened into full ownership. Plea of adverse possession not maintainable. (IV) 2009 (I) Civil Law Times 120 (Uttarakhand)—Kalwati Vs. Girish Shram & Another. Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Date of starting of adverse possession and date of maturity of adverse possession not pleaded—Averment that, defendant was in possession through his father over the suit land since 1953. But, the date from which possession became adverse to the plaintiff not pleaded. Date of ripening of adverse possession was also not pleaded. For which, there is no question of perfecting title over the suit land through adverse possession. (V) 2020 (I) OJR 744 (SC)—Sri Uttam Chand through LRs. Vs. Nathu Ram Through LRs. & Others. Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Plea of defendants is one of continuous possession, but there is no plea that, such possession was hostile to true owner of suit property. Adverse possession fails. 16. Here in this suit at hand, neither the defendants have pleaded in their pleadings on which date their possession over the suit properties became adverse to its true owner and when their such adverse possession had completed and ripened into their full ownership nor they (defendants) have adduced evidence about the same except stating that, they (defendants) are in continuous possession over the suit properties since the time of their grand father Chakradhar Meher. So, the defendants have not been able to bring the prime essentials into the record as per law for establishing their claim of title over the suit properties through adverse possession. Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this suit at hand coupled with indirect Page 16 of 19 R.S.A No.17 of 2021 {{ 17 }} admissions of the defendants to the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit properties by taking the plea of adverse possession over the suit properties against the plaintiff, they (defendants) have become failure to establish their ownership over the suit properties. But, whereas the plaintiff has become able to establish his ownership and title over the suit properties showing the flow of title in his favour from the original owner of the suit properties i.e. from Suban Majhi through documents vide Exts.1 to 10 including the sale deed vide Ext.3 in his favour in respect of the suit properties executed by the successors of the admitted recorded owner i.e. the successors of Lingaraj Mishra. The defendants have not become able to establish through legally admissible evidence that, the properties, those were involved in the earlier suit vide T.S. No.84 of 1986, the said properties are involved in the suit at hand. None of the exhibited documents from the side of the defendants starting from Ext.A to K is able to take away (defeat) the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit properties. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is established that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties, but the defendants have no interest in the same, then, at this juncture, the possession of the defendants over the suit properties cannot and shall not R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 17 of 19 {{ 18 }} be no other than illegal and wrongful possession. So, they (defendants) shall be treated as encroacher of the suit properties. Law does not intent to confirm any premium on the wrong doing of a person in wrongful possession. On this aspect, the propositions law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble courts in the ratio of the following decisions: (I) (II) 2007 (IV) Civ.L.T. 606 (M.P)—Ambaram Vs. Ganga Bai & Others (Para Nos.6 & 7) Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—When the plea of adverse possession taken by a party over the suit properties fails, in that case, that party shall be treated as an encroacher of the suit land rather than owner on the strength of adverse possession. 110 (2010) CLT 589—David Edison @ Adison Lima & Others Vs. Addl. District Magistrate & Others & 2010 (II) CLR 702— David Edison @ Adison Lima & Others Vs. Addl. District Magistrate & Others Indian Limitation Act—Articles 64 and 65—Law does not intent to confer any premium on the wrong doing of a person in wrongful possession. 17. Due to failure of the defendants to establish their title over the suit properties through adverse possession, they (defendants) are the encroachers of the properties of the plaintiff, i.e. suit properties, for which, the court should not confer any premium on the wrongful possession of the defendants over the suit properties. Therefore, both the courts i.e. trial court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties and as well as directing the R.S.A No.17 of 2021 Page 18 of 19 {{ 19 }} defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff by removing the boundary wall around the suit properties. So, in view of the clarified propositions of law in the ratio of the decisions referred to supra, the findings and observations made by both the courts i.e. by the trial court and as well as the 1st Appellate Court in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 and in R.F.A No.2 of 2018 declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties and directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff by removing the boundary wall around the suit properties, cannot be held illegal or erroneous in any manner. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants/defendants does not arise. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants must fail. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) is dismissed on contest against the respondent (plaintiff), but without cost. The Judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in C.S. No.103/100 of 2012-2013 and 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.02 of 2018 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants are hereby confirmed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India Date: 19-Jan-2024 15:15:06 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 16th January, 2024//Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer R.S.A No.17 of 2021 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Page 19 of 19