Orissa High Court
Sk. Sirajudin vs Harihar Panda And Others on 6 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AHO No.13 of 1998
Sk. Sirajudin .... Appellant
Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Harihar Panda and others .... Respondents
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.11.2021
Order No.
20. I.A. No.4 of 2021
1. The Court is informed that the Appellant-Sk. Sirajudin has
expired during pendency of the present appeal.
2. Accordingly, his legal representatives as given in the
present I.A. are substituted in his place as Appellants and
proforma Respondent respectively.
3. The I.A. is accordingly allowed.
A.H.O. No.13 of 1998
1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 9th
January 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A.
No.271 of 1984 whereby the appeal of the present Appellant
was dismissed.
// 2 //
2. The above first appeal itself arose out of a judgment dated
27th June 1984 and a decree dated 6th July 1984 of the
Subordinate Judge, Balasore in T.S. No.13 of 1982 whereby
the suit filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs was decreed.
3. The dispute was concerning three plots i.e. Plot Nos.33
and 34 on the one hand and Plot No.36 belonging to the
present Appellants on the other. All three plots were in
Mouza-Karanja. While the total area of Plot Nos.33 and 34
was Ac.0.78 Decimals, Plot No.36 measured Ac.1.00
Decimals.
4. The dispute arose when the Plaintiffs claimed to be the
absolute owners of Plot Nos.33 and 34. They traced their title
to one Gajendra Narayan Panda who happened to be the
father of Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and husband of Plaintiff No.4.
He had purchased the said land from one Mr. Satapathy in
July, 1934.
5. The dispute arose when the Plaintiffs claimed that on 30th
November 1981, the Appellants/Defendants constructed a
kachha thatched hut forcibly on the suit land. The suit was
therefore for declaration of title, recovery of possession,
permanent injunction and damages.
6. The plea of the Appellants-Defendants that they had gone
in for an oral exchange of their Plot No.36 with Plot No.33
// 3 //
and 34 was unable to be proved in the trial court. The
judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit has been
affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
7. With there being concurrent findings of fact by two
Courts, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this second
appeal. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the
Appellants-Defendants to seek independent remedy in
separate proceedings in respect of Plot No.36 which was
claimed to belong to them.
8. With the above observation, the present appeal is disposed
of.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per
rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Guin
