Babaji Charan Sahu (Since Dead Through ... vs Basanta Kumar Palei And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8354 Ori

Orissa High Court

Babaji Charan Sahu (Since Dead Through ... vs Basanta Kumar Palei And Others on 17 September, 2025

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         S.A. No.246 of 1993
   (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

   Babaji Charan Sahu (since dead through his LRs) .... Appellants
                                -versus-

   Basanta Kumar Palei and others                               ..... Respondents

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

                  For Appellants        -      Mr. D.P. Mohanty,
                                               Advocate.

                  For Respondents-             Mr. A.R. Dash,
                                               Advocate.
                                               Mr. S. Kar,
                                               Advocate.

                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :18.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.09.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This second appeal has been preferred against the

reversing judgment.

2. The appellant in this second appeal was the sole plaintiff before the

Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 and respondent No.1

before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.71 of

1989.

{{ 2 }}

The respondent Nos.3 to 7 & 9 to 11 in this 2nd appeal were the

defendant Nos.1 to 8 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130

of 1983 and respondent Nos.2 to 9 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st

appeal vide T.A. No.71 of 1989.

The respondent Nos.1, 2 & 8 in this 2nd appeal were the defendant

Nos.10, 11 & 9 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of

1983 and appellants and respondent No.10 before the 1 st Appellate Court

in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.71 of 1989.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (appellant in this 2nd appeal) before the

Trial Court vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 against the defendants (respondents

in this second appeal) was a suit for partition and re-purchase under

Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893.

4. As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, the case of

the plaintiff was that, he (plaintiff) and the defendant Nos.1 to 8 belong to

one family hailing from their one common ancestor Gangadhar Sahoo.

5. In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy (family

pedigree), which was given by the plaintiff in Para No.1 of his plaint is

depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

{{ 3 }}

Genealogy Gangadhar Sahu

Sapani Kapila

Kurupu Dhruba Bhaba Dasa Basu

Bainshi (D.8)

Rama Ananta

Parbati (D.6) Ranga (D.7)

Babaji (plaintiff) Rebati (D.3)

Bayani (D.2) Kangali (D.1)

Danei Nanda

Suki (D.4) Sita

Rakhal (D.5)

6. The defendant Nos.9 to 12 are the stranger purchasers. As such,

they (defendant Nos.9 to 12) are not the family members of plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 8.

The properties described in three lots in Schedule 'A' of the plaint

are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1

to 8 and the same are the suit properties. The said suit properties have not

been divided/partitioned between them (plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to

8) at any time as yet through any metes and bounds partition.

{{ 4 }}

The suit plot Nos.2249, 2251 & 2252 are the joint and undivided

dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. The suit plot

No.2250 had/has been using by them (plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8)

as Rasta to their aforesaid joint and undivided dwelling house situated on

plot Nos.2249, 2251 & 2252. The suit plot No.2247 is their joint and

undivided Gadia (Pond) of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. Their

ancestral house was over suit plot No.2248, which was collapsed in the

last cyclone of the year 1982.

When, the stranger defendant Nos.9 to 12 tried to enter into their

undivided dwelling house vide Plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 claiming

that, their predecessor Jagabandhu Palei had purchased the same from

defendant No.1 (Kangali Sahu) and as the defendant Nos.9 to 12 have no

right to enter into and possess the joint and undivided dwelling house of

the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, then without getting any way, the

plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.130 of

1983 praying for partition of his legitimate share along with the shares of

the defendant Nos.1 to 8 from the suit properties and also prayed for

passing a decree entitling him (plaintiff) to re-purchase the properties,

those were sold by the defendant No.1 from plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250

{{ 5 }}

to the predecessor of the defendant Nos.9 to 12 i.e. Jagabandhu Palei

along with other reliefs, to which, he (plaintiff) is entitled for.

7. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.

No.130 of 1983, except defendant Nos.10 to 12, other defendants were

set ex parte. The defendant Nos.10 to 12 contested the suit of the plaintiff

filing their joint written statement taking their stands inter alia therein

that, their predecessor Jagabandhu Palei had purchased the

separate/divided properties of suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 under

Khata No.454 from the defendant No.1 through registered sale deeds

dated 18.07.1957 and 18.02.1958 respectively and their predecessor

Jagabandhu Palei was possessing his above purchased properties

separately since the date of his purchase. Because, plot Nos.2247, 2248 &

2250 are not the homestead lands of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to

8. The said purchased properties have been using by them (defendant

Nos.10 to 12) as their Bari land. As, they (defendant Nos.10 to 12) have

been possessing the suit properties separately as their Bari land since the

time of their predecessor Jagabandhu Palei, for which, they had/have their

title and possession over the same, in which, he plaintiff and defendant

Nos.1 to 8 have no interest. They (defendant Nos.9 to 12) have perfected

{{ 6 }}

their title over the suit properties through adverse possession on the basis

of their long and continuous possession. The plaintiff and defendant

Nos.1 to 8 have no interest in the same. The plaintiff is not entitled to re-

purchase the same from them (defendant Nos.9 to 12).

Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against

them (defendant Nos.9 to 12).

8. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies

between the parties, altogether 7 (seven) numbers of issues were framed

by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 and the said issues

are:-

ISSUES

(i) Is the suit maintainable?

(ii) Is the suit lands are the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiff and his co-sharers?

(iii) Had the plaintiff his residential house on suit plot No.2248?

(iv) Have the defendants perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession?

(v) Are the sale deeds dated 11.04.53, 18.03.55, 18.07.57 and 18.02.58 valid and binding?

(vi) What relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief U/s.4 of the Partition Act?

{{ 7 }}

9. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the

plaintiff against the defendants in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983, he

(plaintiff) examined four numbers of witnesses from his side including

him as P.W.1 and relied upon series of documents on his behalf vide

Exts.1 to 4/a.

On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiff,

the defendant Nos.10 to 12 examined 5 (five) witnesses from their side

including defendant No.10 as D.W.1 and exhibited series of documents

on their behalf vide Exts.A to K.

10. 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 defendant

Nos.9 to 12 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the

Trial Court in the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant Nos.9 to 12, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff

preliminarily for partition vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 on contest against the

defendant Nos.10 to 12 and ex parte against the remaining defendants and

passed the decree for partition/division of the suit properties between the

plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 in lot wise indicating about the same

{{ 8 }}

specifically in the ordering portion of the judgment of the suit entitling

the plaintiff to get the relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 for

repurchasing the suit Plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 from the defendant

Nos.9 to 12 on payment of prevailing price to be fixed during the final

decree proceeding and directed them (defendant Nos.9 to 12) to execute

the sale deed in respect of the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 in favour

of the plaintiff at his cost as per its judgment and decree dated 18.08.1989

and 28.09.1989 respectively assigning the reasons that,

"the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are the joint and undivided dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the predecessor of defendant Nos.9 to 12 in respect of the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are held to be invalid and the suit properties including suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 being the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, the same has not been partitioned between them through any metes and bounds partition."

11. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated

18.08.1989 and 28.09.1989 respectively passed by the Trial Court in T.S.

No.130 of 1983 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.9

to 12, they (defendant Nos.10 & 11) challenged the same preferring the

First Appeal vide T.A. No.71 of 1989 being the appellants against the

{{ 9 }}

plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 arraying them as respondent Nos.1 to 9

and also arraying defendant No.9 as the performa respondent No.10, as

by that time, the defendant No.12 (Gurubari Bewa) had expired leaving

behind defendant Nos.9 to 11 (appellants & respondent No.10) as her

legal heirs.

12. After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court

allowed that First Appeal vide T.A. No.71 of 1989 and set aside to the

entire judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.

No.130 of 1983 in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit vide T.S.

No.130 of 1983 of the plaintiff in toto as per its judgment and decree

dated 30.06.1993 and 13.07.1993 respectively passed in T.A. No.71 of

1989 assigning the reasons that,

"the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are not the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, but, the same have been possessing and using by the defendant Nos.10 to 12 for cultivation purpose as their Bari keeping the same within one enclosure to the exclusion of others including the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. So, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 is set aside and the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed."

{{ 10 }}

13. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated

30.06.1993 and 13.07.1993 respectively passed by the learned 1st

Appellate Court in T.A. No.71 of 1989 in dismissing the suit of the

plaintiff vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 setting aside its judgment and decree

passed by the learned Trial Court, he (plaintiff) challenged the same

preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellant against the defendant Nos.9

to 11 arraying them as respondent Nos.9 to 11 and also arraying the

defendant Nos.1 to 8 as proforma respondents.

When, during the pendency of the 2nd appeal, the appellant

(plaintiff) expired, then his LRs were substituted in his place as appellant

Nos.1(a) to 1(g).

14. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following

substantial question of law i.e.:-

Whether according to the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court erred in holding that, Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 has no application to the case?

15. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the LRs of

appellant (plaintiff) and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 11.

16. The plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 praying for

repurchasing suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 from defendant Nos.9 to

{{ 11 }}

12 stating that, the defendant Nos.9 to 12 are the stranger purchasers of

the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 and the said suit plot Nos.2247,

2248 & 2250 are their joint and undivided dwelling house and for

partition of the entire suit properties described in Schedule 'A' including

suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 between him (plaintiff) and defendant

Nos.1 to 8.

It has been established as per the concurrent findings of the learned

Trial Court as well as learned 1st appellate Court that, the defendant Nos.9

to 12 are not the same caste people of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to

8. They (defendant Nos.9 to 12) belong to separate caste. As such, the

defendant Nos.9 to 12 are strangers to the family of the plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 8. The plaintiff has filed the suit as a co-sharer of the

suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 with defendant Nos.1 to 8 praying for

repurchasing the same from the stranger purchasers (defendant Nos.9 to

12).

17. It is the settled propositions of law that, a co-sharer cannot file an

application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 praying for re-

purchasing the suit properties from the stranger purchasers, unless the

stranger purchaser/purchasers file a suit for partition of their purchased

{{ 12 }}

properties. For which, only in a suit for partition filed by the stranger

purchasers, the co-sharer of the same like the plaintiff can file an

application under Section-4 of the Partition Act, 1893 praying for

repurchasing the same, otherwise such prayer of any co-sharer like the

plaintiff under Section-4 of the Partition Act, 1893 is not entertainable

under law.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified

by the Apex Court and Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following

decisions:-

(i) In a case between Ghanteswar Ghosh Vrs. Madan Mohan Ghosh reported in 1996 (11) SCC 446 that, an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 is maintainable, only when the stranger transferee filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the undivided share transferred to him by the co-owner of the applicants concerned or else the petition under Section-4 of the Partition Act, 1893 is not maintainable under law.

(ii) In a case between Gautam Paul Vrs. Debi Rani Paul and others reported in AIR 2001 (SC) 61 & (2000) 8 SCC 330 and Babulal Vrs. Habibnoor Khan (Dead) by LRs & Others reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 2684 that, unless there is initiation of proceeding or the making of a claim to partition by the stranger purchaser of share in a family dwelling house, the co-sharers do not get right to claim pre-

emption.

(iii) In a case between Purna Chandra Mallik Vrs. Smt. Renuka Jena and others reported in 2007 (1) C.J.D. (H.C.) 147 that, a co-sharer cannot file application for pre- emption and re-purchase the property, unless the stranger- purchaser files the suit for partition. (Para 8)

{{ 13 }}

(iv) In a case between Rama Chandra Prusty (Since Dead) represented by his legal heirs Rabindra Kumar Prusty and another Vrs. Bidyadhar Prusty and others reported in 2016 (I) CLR--1058 that, right to re-purchase under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 is available to a co-parcener/co-owner/co-sharer, only when the transferee has sued for partition.

(v) In a case between Kabita Acharya Vrs. Basanta Kumar Layak and others reported in 2017 (3) CCC 19 (Orissa) that, for invoking Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, stranger/transferee must sue for partition and separate possession. Till the stranger transferee moves an application for separating her share, Section-4 of Partition Act, 1893 cannot be pressed into service.

(vi) In a case between Bidyadhar Behera & Others Vrs. Nilakantha Rout and another reported in 2018 (I) CLR 864 & 2018 (1) OJR 378 that, plaintiff, a co-sharer cannot maintain a suit claiming the right of pre-emption. He can exercise the right in a suit for partition and separate possession brought by stranger transferee. (Paras 10 & 11)

18. As per the findings and observations made in the Para-11 of the

learned Trial Court in its judgment and decree, it has been specifically

held by the learned Trial Court that, the sales made by the defendant No.1

in favour of the predecessor of defendant Nos.9 to 12 i.e. Jagabandhu

Palei through the sale deeds in respect of the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 &

2250 are invalid under law.

The said observations made by the learned Trial Court i.e. the sale

deeds in favour of the predecessor of the defendant Nos.9 to 12 in respect

of suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 as invalid cannot be sustainable under

law.

{{ 14 }}

Because, Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent power

for alienation of the properties by a co-sharer. For which, the sales made

by the co-owner/co-sharer of the plaintiff i.e. defendant No.1 in favour of

Jagabandhu Palei (predecessor of defendant Nos.9 to 12) in respect of suit

plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 shall remain valid to the extent of his share

therein.

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) In a case between Ganapath Sahu and another Vrs. Smt. Bulli Sahu and Others reported in 1974 (1) CWR 222, In a case between Gorakh Nath Dube Vrs. Hari Narain Singh and others reported in AIR 1973 (SC) 2451, In a case between Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Smt. Malati Rout and others reported in 2013 (I) CLR--570--

& In a case between Manoj Kumar Nayak and another Vrs. Guna Mohanty and Ors reported in 116 (2013) CLT 209 that, transfer of property more than transferor's interest in land 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)

(ii) In a case between T.Ravi and another Vrs. B. Chinna Narasimha and Ors. reported in (II) 2017 Civ.L.T. 185 (SC) (at Para 40) that, a co-sharer has right to alienate his own share only, which he had in the property i.e. to the extent of his share only. The vendor has no authority to sell the land of other co-sharers.

(iii) In a case between Ahamad Khan and others Vrs. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey and others reported in 2024 (3) CCC (Madhya Pradesh) 307 (at Para 13) that, although a co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share, but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land.

{{ 15 }}

(iv) In a case between Balwinder Singh Vrs. Gurucharan Singh reported in 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 05 (Punjab & Haryana) that, as per the settled law, any alienation out of the joint property by a co sharer would amount to alienation of the property out of the share. Even there is alienation of any specific Khasara number or specific portion, the same amounts to alienation of the share of the vendor, which is subject to adjustment at the time of partition.

(v) In a case between Tankadhar Pradhan Vrs. Bimala Naik @ Dei (dead) and others reported in 2024 (2) CCC 166 (Orissa) that, alienation by co-owner (co-sharer) shall be valid to the extent of his/her share only.

19. Here in this matter at hand, when the stranger transferees i.e.

defendant Nos.9 to 12 have not filed any suit for partition praying for

partition of their purchased properties vide plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250

and when without any suit for partition of the stranger purchasers i.e.

defendant Nos.9 to 12, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief i.e. under

Section-4 of the Partition Act, 1893 in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983

filed by him (plaintiff) for repurchasing the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 &

2250 from the defendant Nos.9 to 12, then at this juncture, in view of the

propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the

relief sought for by the plaintiff (appellant in this 2nd appeal) under

Section-4 of the Partition Act, 1893 for re-purchasing the suit plot

Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 from the defendant Nos.9 to 12 is not

entertainable under law.

{{ 16 }}

20. It has been observed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in its

judgment and decree reversing the observations made by the learned Trial

Court that, the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are not the undivided

dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, but the same are

the cultivable lands of the defendant Nos.9 to 12.

The above findings of the learned 1st Appellate Court have become

inacceptable under law, as it is established through the unassailed oral

and documentary evidence of the plaintiff that, the suit plot No.2250 is a

Rasta and the suit plot No.2247 is a Gadia (pond). So, the question of

using Rasta and Gadia as cultivable lands of the defendant Nos.9 to 12

does not arise.

Therefore, the findings and observations made by the learned Trial

Court that, suit plot Nos.2247, 2248, 2249 & 2250 were/are the undivided

dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 cannot be held as

unreasonable.

21. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the

findings and observations made by the learned 1 st Appellate Court that,

the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are cultivable lands of the defendant

Nos.9 to 12 have become unsustainable under law and when it is held

{{ 17 }}

above that, the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 & 2250 are the undivided

dwelling house of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and when, the

final conclusion drawn by the learned 1st Appellate Court in its impugned

judgment and decree that, the relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act,

1893 sought for by the plaintiff in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983

against the defendant Nos.9 to 12 is not entertainable, has become

acceptable, as the plaintiff is precluded under law to make such a prayer

under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 in his own suit and when, it is

established that, the suit properties being the joint and undivided

properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, the same have not

been partitioned between them (plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8)

through any metes and bound partition as yet, then at this juncture, the

judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in

dismissing the entire suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1983 of the plaintiff

indirectly refusing the relief for partition of the plaintiff after setting

aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court cannot

be sustainable under law.

Because, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for partition of

the suit properties, though he (plaintiff) is not entitled for the relief under

{{ 18 }}

Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 for repurchasing the suit plots from

the defendant Nos.9 to 12.

Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference

in part with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as

well as learned 1st Appellate Court through this 2nd Appeal filed by the

plaintiff. For which, this 2nd Appeal filed by the plaintiff (appellant) is to

be decreed in part.

As such, there is some merit in this 2nd Appeal filed by the

appellant. The same is to be allowed in part.

22. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff) is decreed

in part on contest, but without cost.

The judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court

in setting aside the entire judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court

is set aside.

The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court

concerning the decree for repurchasing the suit plot Nos.2247, 2248 &

2250 from the defendant Nos.9 to 12 in favour of the plaintiff is set aside,

but, whereas the judgment and decree concerning the partition of the suit

properties between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 in lot wise

{{ 19 }}

carving out their shares in the ordering portion of the judgment and

decree of the learned Trial Court is confirmed.

The suit be and the same filed by the plaintiff (appellant in this 2 nd

Appeal) against the defendants in respect of the suit properties described

in lot Nos.1 to 3 of the Schedule 'A' is decreed preliminarily for partition

on contest against the defendant Nos.10 to 12 and ex parte against other

defendants, but under the circumstances without cost.

Out of the suit properties described in lot Nos.1 to 3 of the

Schedule 'A' of the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are

entitled to get their shares in lot wise indicated in the ordering portion of

the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court subject to the

adjustment of the sales made by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8

from their respective shares.

23. The parties (plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8) may amicably

effect partition of the suit properties in proportion to their respective

shares as indicated in the ordering portion of the judgment and decree

passed by the learned Trial Court in lot wise within a period of 3 months

hence, failing which, any one of the parties between the plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 8 may apply to the Court for making the decree final.

{{ 20 }}

In the final decree proceeding, Civil Court Commissioner to be

appointed by the Court shall make division of the suit properties amongst

the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 by allotting their respective shares

in their favour in accordance with the apportionments made in the

judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and while so partitioning,

he shall respect to the possession and convenience of the parties (plaintiff

and defendant Nos.1 to 8).

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

17.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack