Orissa High Court
Narayan Parida And Another vs Ram Chandra Parida And Others on 20 September, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGRAM DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RFA No.90 of 2008
(From the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008 passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Jagatsinghpur
in T.S.No.37/84 of 2006/2002)
Narayan Parida and Another .... Appellants
-versus-
Ram Chandra Parida and Others .... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. D.P.Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. S.Mishra, Advocate for R.1
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
20 September, 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellants
and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
2. The judgment and decree dated 11th March 2008 of learned Ad-
hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Jagatsinghpur passed in
T.S. No.37/84 of 2006/2002 is assailed in present appeal by
Defendants 2 & 3.
The suit was filed by present Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff
praying for partition and to declare R.S.D. No.2410/2000 (Ext-A)
executed in favour of Defendants 2 & 3 as void and invalid, along
with other consequential reliefs. There are two sets of property
involved in the suit as schedule-A and schedule-B. Schedule-B
property is the property covered by R.S.D. dated 24th October 2000
(Ext-A).
3. The parties contested their case and upon adjudication the
learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff drawing
shares of the parties over the properties covered in both schedule-A &
B treating the sale deed under Ext-A as void, without any specific
declaration to that effect. The properties under lot No.II of Suit
Schedule-A has been decreed in favour of the family deity (Defendant
No.1) with joint marfatdar of both parties. The portion of the decree
where learned Trial Judge has treated the sale deed under Ext-A as
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
void covering schedule-B property, and directing partition of the same
among the parties is subject matter of challenge in present appeal.
4. The relationship between the parties is that, late Dolagobinda
Parida (Doli) is the common ancestor of the parties who had two sons
and two daughters. Second son namely, Ram Chandra Parida is the
Plaintiff. The family deity is Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 is
the elder son, i.e. brother of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are
the sons of Defendant No.4. Defendant Nos. 5 & 6 are the daughters
of Dolagobinda and Defendant No.7 was the wife of Dolagobinda.
5. According to Plaintiff, entire property of the family was
undivided and therefore there should be partition among the parties in
respect of schedule-A properties. In addition to the same, the Plaintiff
contends that the property covered in suit Schedule-B, allegedly sold
by Dolagobinda under Ext-A in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, is
not valid and the sale deed is a void document. It is for the reason that
on the date of alleged sale on 24th October 2000, his father late
Dolagobinda was not mentally fit to act independently to execute the
sale deed. But the sale deed under Ext-A was signed by Late
Dolagobinda by misrepresentation and fraud on the guise of getting
financial assistance from the Office of Block Development Officer for
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Indira Abas House. It is the further case of Plaintiff that there was no
legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida to execute such sale
deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, secondly, there was no
passing of consideration money in the alleged execution of sale deed
of schedule-B land and thirdly, there was no delivery of possession in
pursuance of the impugned sale.
6. The Defendants had no objection with regard to partition of the
suit schedule-A property and all the parties accordingly agreed for
partition in respect of suit schedule-A property. But Defendant Nos. 2
& 3 who are the purchasers in respect of the sale deed under Ext-A,
filed their joint written statement denying the contentions of the
Plaintiff to treat the sale deed as a sham document and according to
them the sale deed under Ext-A executed by late Dolagobinda Parida
is a valid document being validly executed by him in their favour
upon receipt of the sale consideration money. The further case of
Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 is that, the legal necessity on the part of the
seller was very well depicted in the sale deed itself and the recitals of
the sale deed are self-explanatory which are not established to be
incorrect by the Plaintiff.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
7 The learned Trial Court while adjudicating the dispute framed
seven issues amongst which Issue Nos. 6 & 7 are with regard to
execution of the sale deed under Ext-A in respect of suit schedule-B
properties. Said two issues read as follows:-
Issues:-
xxx xxx xxx
6. Is the sale deed dtd.24.l0.2000 executed by
Dolagobinda Parida in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3 is
illegal, invalid and void deed?
7. Whether the plaintiff has contributed funds for
acquisition of suit schedule 'B' properties?
It is to be noted that such finding of the Trial Court in respect of
Issue Nos. 6 is the challenge made by Defendants No. 2 & 3 in present
appeal. According to learned Trial Court, there was no legal necessity
on the part of Dolagobinda Parida to execute the sale deed in favour
of Defendants No. 2 & 3, based on the evidences led by different
witnesses and upon a thorough analysis of the same. It is also the
finding of the Trial Court that passing of consideration money for
execution of sale of the property is not proved to be a genuine fact and
thus, taking into all such circumstances it has come to the finding that
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
the Plaintiff has established his case to prove the sale deed under Ext-
A as illegal and void.
8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant while
challenging such finding of learned Trial Court submits that
admittedly suit schedule-B property is the self-acquired property of
Dolagobinda Parida and he according to the recitals of the sale deed
executed the sale deed voluntarily and the findings of the Trial Court
with regard to legal necessity on the part of the executor and passing
of sale consideration money from the purchaser are not supported by
sufficient material to treat the sale deed void. The chosen sentences of
the witnesses used by the Trial Court to support Plaintiff's case are
wrong appreciation on the part of the learned Trial judge. By taking
this Court to the evidence of the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and
other witnesses, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, tries to convince that
the facts and statements of evidences of the witnesses do justify the
case of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 to show that the sale deed under Ext-A
has been validly executed.
9. Conversely, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
the Plaintiff (present Respondent No.1) that when evidence has been
brought through the witnesses that there was jointness in the family,
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
the question of legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida for
personal causes is not at all a fact existed to execute the sale deed by
him. Mr. Mishra contends that when separation of all the parties from
jointness of the properties and family is not pleaded by the
Defendants, the question of legal necessity on the part of the executant
alone to sale the land does not arise. It is also submitted that
Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were not that affluent at the time of execution
of the sale deed to pay the consideration amount since one of the
purchaser was a minor at that time and the other purchaser had very
scanty income to maintain his livelihood with three children.
Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard that Defendants
No. 2 & 3 were not financially capable to pay the consideration
amount is completely justified on the basis of the statements of the
witnesses made in course of their evidences.
10. As stated earlier, the challenge to the impugned judgment and
decree is in respect of the execution of sale deed dated 24 th October
2000 (Ext.A) covering suit schedule-B properties. The extent of land
covered under suit schedule-B property is measuring Ac.0.48
decimals, agricultural land in nature. It is true that no dispute with
regard to partition of the properties covered under suit schedule-A is
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
questioned by either party. Since the challenge is in respect of
declaring the sale deed is void and invalid to treat the same as a sham
transaction on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud played by
Defendants No. 2 & 3, as per the allegations of the Plaintiff made in
the plaint, undoubtedly the burden comes on the Plaintiff to prove his
contentions that execution of Ext-A is null and void based on fraud
and misrepresentation. Sections 101 to 111 of the Evidence Act
enumerate the principles of burden of proof. At the beginning, section
101 requires the plaintiff to initially discharge the burden to prove the
facts exist in his favour as per his contentions. In Anil Rishi vs-
Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
have held that;
"19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be
borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of
proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus
probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a
case. The question of onus of proof has greater force,
where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of
proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of
bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at
the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a
proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an
indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of
the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is
inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and
makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus
shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if
any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
11. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff has examined five witnesses
including himself as P.W.4. It is admitted on the part of the Plaintiff
that he was serving as a salesman earlier in "Jana Kalyan Bhandar",
a Cooperative Society, and he dropped his study in the year 1965-66
from Class-IX. So according to his statement Plaintiff has read up to
Class-IX and served for some years as a salesman. At the same
time, it is admitted by the Plaintiff that his brother, Defendant No.4
has read up to "Chatshali" (primary education up to Class-3).
Dolagobinda Parida died on 17th November 2001 and the sale deed
under Ext-A was executed on 24th October 2000. It is further
admitted that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 being the sons of Defendant
No.4 became the grandsons of Dolagobinda. Thus, it is admitted by
the parties that Dolagobinda executed the sale deed under Ext-A in
favour of his grandsons prior to one year of his death.
12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4 and D.W.6, who are the
sons of Dolagobinda, it is admitted that before 2-3 years of death of
Dolagobinda he remained ill, though no specific cause of ill or state of
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
illness of Dolagobinda has been brought on record. Nothing has been
brought on record with regard to the fact whether his illness was
mental, physical or both. But as seen from the narration of events that
in the year 2000 particularly on the date of execution of the sale deed,
Dolagobinda was not that much ill unable to move outside from his
house or unable to understand things generally.
13. When a challenge is levelled to a particular document, which
is a registered instrument, it is presumed that the transaction is
genuine. In Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC 300, it has
been observed as follows;
"33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts
below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies.
The record reveals that the disputed documents are
registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal
principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the
same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem
Singh v. Birbal [Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353]
. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below :
(SCC pp. 360-61, para 27)
"27. There is a presumption that a registered
document is validly executed. A registered document,
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus
of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads
evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case,
Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said
presumption."
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
(emphasis supplied)
In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was
on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered
document.
xx .. xx .. xx .."
14. It is true that when the terms and understandings between the
parties are required to be reflected in writing in the document, to
disprove the same oral evidence can be led in specific circumstances,
and the provisions of Section 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act come into
operation depending on the nature of document. What is submitted by
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Plaintiff that in case of a
challenge to the sale deed that it has been obtained by way of fraud
and misrepresentation, in such circumstances the oral evidence by the
party is permissible contrary to the recitals of the documents or in
rebuttal to the contents of the document. It is true that when the
character of the document is assailed being fraudulent or sham, it is
open for the party to question the contents of the documents by
rebuttal evidence. Indisputedly when the true character of a document
is questioned, extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is
admissible. [See Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. Vs.
Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713] So, it needs to be
looked into the recitals of the sale deed at the first instance. According
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
to the recitals of the sale deed under Ext.A, the executant or the seller
received the consideration amount of Rs.26,400/- from the purchasers
for his legal necessity to sale the property. Such consideration money
was paid in installments prior to execution of the sale deed. The Trial
Court upon analysis of the evidences of the parties and their witnesses
has come to the conclusion that since there is discrepancy in the
pleading and evidence of the Defendants vis-à-vis the recitals of the
sale deed with regard to nature of payment of consideration money, it
is hard to believe that actual consideration money has been passed for
execution of the sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3. It is for
the reason that, Defendant No.3 was though a minor below 18 years of
age on the date of execution of the sale deed, but his age has been
wrongly mentioned as 20 years in the sale deed and further, the
statements of Defendant No.2 and his witnesses regarding payment of
Rs.21,400/- on the date of execution of the sale deed to Doli Parida is
contrary to the recitals of the sale deed that the amount was paid in
installment. The further reason stated by the Trial Court that
according to the statements of D.W.2, an attesting witness present at
the time of registration of Ext.A, the contents of the document were
not read over and explained to Doli Parida before he put signature in
the document.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
15. Admittedly the Trial Court gave finding on Issue No.7 against
the Plaintiff that he failed to establish his claim regarding payment of
money to Doli Parida at the time of purchase of suit schedule-B
property in the year 1972. This part of the finding of the Trial Court is
never challenged by the Plaintiff. On Issue No.6, it is the conclusion
of the Trial Court that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 played fraud and
misrepresentation on the executor - Doli Parida, first, by taking him
to the office of the registration and getting his signatures on the stamp
papers in the guise of belief given to him that he had been to the office
of Block Development Officer to sanction the loan for repairing the
house damaged in super cyclone. The further conclusion of the Trial
Court in respect of payment of consideration money by Defendant
Nos. 2 & 3 is that, they did not have that financial capability to pay
Rs.26,400/- in the year 2000. It is because Defendant No.3 was a
minor and Defendant No.2 had scanty income of Rs.800-1000/- per
month during that time.
16. It is true that D.W.2 namely, Bata Krushna Barik is an attesting
witness to the sale deed and he has deposed during his cross-
examination that the contents of Ext.A were not read over and
explained to Dolagobinda Parida before the Sub-Registrar. But at the
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
same time the deed writer (D.W.3) and Defendant No.2 (D.W.5) have
stated that the contents having been read over and explained to
Dolagobinda Parida, he put his signature on the same. According to
the evidences of different witnesses, the office of the Sub-Registrar
situates near the office of the B.D.O., but they are not adjacent. It is
though stated by the witnesses that Doli Parida was ill prior to
two/three years of execution of the sale deed, but it has never come on
record that he was not in a state of sound mind. Though no evidence is
there on record to say that Doli Parida was bedridden at that time, who
died on 17th November 2001, still it is the finding of the Trial Court
that he was not in a state of sound mind and bedridden. Here the trial
Court has committed error giving such finding without any material
brought on record in that respect. Illness does not mean that a person
is seriously ill and unable to move or his mental state is not sound. To
arrive at such specific conclusion there must be material evidence
brought on record to justify the same. But the Trial Court in the
present case has gone far beyond the evidence of the witnesses to
derive the conclusion that Doli Parida was not in a fit state of mind
and bedridden at the time of execution of the sale deed, which is
certainly an error apparent in the impugned judgment.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
17. Here it is pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Plaintiff that though the age of Doli Parida as per his voter ID card
was 84 years but his age was mentioned as 76 years in the sale deed.
Taking into consideration the age of the executant as 84 years it is
normal on his part to be not in a state of fit mind to execute the sale
deed. In answer to this, it is clarified here that such an submission put
forth on behalf of the Plaintiff is not only having lesser probability but
also unsupported by specific evidence. It is not that the voter ID card
of a person is conclusive proof of his age. In the contrary, the age
mentioned in the sale deed can be considered as an declaration on the
part of the executant who has signed on the same. In absence of any
reliable rebuttal evidence to dispute the age of the executant against
his admission made in a registered document, the age mentioned in
the document remains binding to accept the same as such.
18. The allegation of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of
Doli Parida to execute Ext.A as alleged by the Plaintiff has not been
substantially proved through materials. Doli Parida was undisputedly
a man born and brought up in the same locality, and besides the suit
schedule-B land, he had purchased other lands also as admitted by the
parties. Therefore it is not that Doli Parida did not know about the
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
difference in the office of the Block Development Officer and Sub-
Registrar office. None of the witnesses have stated in that respect that
at the time of registration of Ext.A he was misrepresented to sign on
the stamp paper on the understanding that he is applying for loan in
the office of Block Development Officer, nor any such material to
substantiate such allegation of the Plaintiff has been produced on
record. Therefore such stand taken on behalf of the Plaintiff to
substantiate the ground of fraud is failed. The burden is on the
Plaintiff to prove the factum of fraud committed on Doli Parida as
alleged by him. Here in the instant case the Plaintiff is not able to
discharge the burden on his part. The Trial Court though has stated
that the Plaintiff has failed on this aspect to justify his ground of fraud
against Defendants but has stated that fraud has been committed on
Doli Parida since the document was not read over and explained to
him in presence of the Sub-Registrar and the true age of Defendant
No.3 as one of the purchaser was concealed. In the opinion of this
Court such grounds stated by the Trial Court to describe fraud
committed by Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 is insufficient to declare the
document void. Moreover the statement of D.W.2 with regard to non
reading of the document in presence of the Sub-Registrar cannot be
completely believed since the sole statement of D.W.2 is not
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
supported by the statements of other witnesses like D.W.3- the deed
writer, and D.W.5. Said statement of D.W.2 is of less probative value
because the execution of the document before the Sub-Registrar
remains undisputed and the presumptive value of such registered
instrument cannot be so easily brushed aside.
19. In relation to the finding of the Trial Court that no consideration
amount was passed for execution of the sale deed, the learned Trial
Court has analyzed upon the evidence of Defendant No.2 (D.W.5).
According to his finding, Defendant No.3 was a minor without having
income on the date of execution of the sale deed and Defendant No.2
did not have that financial affluency to pay the consideration amount.
It is true that as per the statement of D.W.6, who is the father of
Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, Defendant No.3 was a minor on 24 th October
2000 and therefore, it can be safely concluded that he did not have any
income in absence of specific materials in that respect. Defendant
No.2 has admitted in his evidence that he was having income of
Rs.800-1000/- per month and he married in the year 1995-96 and was
having three children on the date of execution of Ext.A. At the same
time, as per the evidence of D.W.6 (who is father of Defendants No. 2
& 3) he was living along with Defendants No.2 & 3 in the year 2000
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
in one mess. According to D.W.5 he was aged about 33 years in the
year 2000 and his income was Rs.800-to 1000/- per month. It is stated
by the Plaintiff that all the parties including Doli Parida were in joint
mess till death of Doli Parida in the year 2001. It is admitted on the
part of the Plaintiff that he was serving as a salesman in a Cooperative
store at Tarikunda, a place away from their village. On the contrary, it
is the case of the Defendants including Defendant No.4 that both sons
of Doli Parida were residing separately in separate mess, and Doli
Parida who was living along with his wife separately was not properly
attended by his sons. There is no material or evidence produced by the
Plaintiff to show that all the parties were in common mess where
D.W.6, the elder brother of the Plaintiff has denied about joint-ness of
family. According to the Defendants, 10 to 12 years prior to the
execution of the sale deed under Ext.A all were residing in separate
mess and therefore the legal necessity arose on the part of Doli Parida
to sale the land in order to meet his expenses towards medicine, wife's
treatment and repayment of loan incurred for daughters' marriage.
Such legal necessity recited in the sale deed under Ext.A has not been
sufficiently rebutted by the Plaintiff to substantiate his contention
denying the same. It is not that someone earning Rs.800- 1000/- per
month would be always incapable to pay Rs.26,400/-. When
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Defendant No.2 was admittedly residing with his father in one mess
and his father had separate income also, it would be inappropriate to
presume that Defendant No.2 did not have the capacity to pay
Rs.26,400/- towards consideration money to purchase a land. What is
stated in the recitals of sale deed that Rs.5,000/- was paid prior to the
date of sale and Rs.21,400/- was paid on the date of sale, implies that
the consideration money was paid in installments and therefore there
cannot be any contradiction brought between the statements of
Defendant No.2 and the recitals of the sale deed. When it is stated by
the Defendant that he paid the consideration money in parts, first
Rs.5,000/- and then Rs.21,400/-, the conclusion derived by the Trial
Court that the same stands contrary to the recitals of the sale deed
regarding payment of consideration money in installments, is seen to
be an error committed by the Trial Court.
20. The Trial Court appears to have ignored an important fact that
undisputedly the stamp papers used in execution in the sale deed were
purchased by Doli Parida himself. This fact is never disputed by the
Plaintiff. When admittedly the sale deed was executed before the
registering authority on due stamp papers purchased by the vendor
and the same is challenged after death of the vendor, strong rebuttal
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
evidence needs to be produced on record to disbelieve valid execution
of the sale. The finding of the Trial Court that no consideration
amount was passed in favour of the vendor for the reason that
Defendant No.2 did not have sufficient income to pay the
consideration amount is not found supported with sufficient material
evidence. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court did not consider
the entire income of the family of Defendant No.4 who were in
common mess along with Defendants No. 2 & 3. Only for the reason
that Defendant No. 2 had meager income of Rs.800-1000/- per month
during the time of execution of the sale deed, it is not sufficient to
conclude that he is unable to pay the consideration amount for sale.
The Trial Court has not given any finding on the aspect of alleged
fraud that the signature of Doli Parida was taken on misrepresentation,
i.e. in the guise of applying for Indira Abas house. Only for the reason
that D.W.2 has said that the contents of the document was not read
over and explained to Doli Parida before the Sub-Registrar, contrary
to the evidence of D.W.3 & 5, it is not sufficient to opine that the
document was executed by playing fraud.
21. At this stage it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that when Doli
Parida was an illerate person, who only knows to put his signature, the
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
burden shifts on the beneficiary to establish the fact of valid execution
and passing of consideration money. It needs to be answered here it is
not the case of the Plaintiff that either of the purchasers or even their
father were educated and in a position of advantage to dominate the
seller. Alike Doli Parida, Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are also
uneducated and depending on cultivation to maintain their livelihood
unlike the Plaintiff who was a service holder in a cooperative store.
Therefore the totality of circumstances on the backdrop of the
evidences of the parties and the materials brought on record, it would
be incorrect to conclude that the sale deed was executed without
passing of the consideration money and by playing fraud/
misrepresentation on the vendor. It is true that the vendor is the
grandfather of the purchasers. But this cannot be a ground to be taken
against the purchasers that they have managed to get the sale of land
in their favour by influencing the vendor or practicing fraud on him
without paying the consideration money. The legal necessities of the
vendor as described in the sale deed are not established as non-
existent through cogent evidence. The preponderance of the evidences
including the fact of admitted signature of Dolagobinda Parida on the
sale deed, the stamp papers purchased by him and registration of the
same being presented before the Registering Authority, is found much
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
heavier in favour of Defendants No. 2 & 3 against the evidences
adduced by the Plaintiff. Therefore the finding of the Trial Court to
set aside the sale deed for including suit schedule-B properties for
partition with equal share of the Plaintiff on the same, as per the
impugned judgment, needs to be interfered with.
22. It is accordingly directed that the impugned judgment in respect
of suit schedule-B properties covered in the sale deed under Ext.A is
excluded from the partition as the exclusive property of Defendants
No. 2 & 3.
23. The appeal is disposed of as allowed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.Das, Sr.Steno
