Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27172 (ORI)

Jiban Ballabha Mohanty v. Prafulla Kumar Das

2026-03-06

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026
Judgment : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.1 and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical and challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal Case Nos.97 and 98 of 1996 as well as the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.290 and 291 of 1997 under Annexure-5 and 6, with parties being same in both the Writ Petitions, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 3 . It is the case of the petitioners that challenging the sale deed executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty, the common ancestor of the present petitioners vide Sale Deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, as well as seeking partition of the suit schedule Ka and Kha property, the present petitioners filed O.S. No.49 of 1974-I in the Court of Learned Sub-Judge, Puri. The suit was filed by the present petitioners against Lt. Narayan Mohanty and the vendees of the Sale Deed dated 23.03.1967. 3.1 . It is contended that the aforesaid suit in O.S. No.49 of 1974 was decreed in part by holding that Defendant No.3 therein, is not the adopted son of the Lt. Narayan Mohanty and preliminary decree of partition was passed by allowing 2/3 rd share in favour of the present petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. 2. While deciding issue No.5, learned Trial Court held that the alienation of the suit land made by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 and 4 to 7, is not for legal necessity and it wound not bind the plaintiff/petitioners. It is contended that challenging such judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.49 of 1974, the present petitioners filed F.A. No.59 of 1976 before this Court against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 and 4 to 7 did not challenge the judgment and decree so passed on 28.11.1975 in O.S. No.49 of 1974. 3. 3. The aforesaid First Appeal however was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 18.12.1987 under Annexure-3. However, during pendency of the appeal, Defendant No.1-Narayan Mohanty died in the year 1978. Defendant No.2 and 4 to 7 did not challenge the judgment and decree so passed on 28.11.1975 in O.S. No.49 of 1974. 3. 3. The aforesaid First Appeal however was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 18.12.1987 under Annexure-3. However, during pendency of the appeal, Defendant No.1-Narayan Mohanty died in the year 1978. It is contended that challenging judgment dated 18.12.1987, so passed by this Court in FA No.59 of 1976, Defendant No.3- Ashok Kumar Mohanty filed AHO No.6 of 1988 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 24.03.1993, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Section (4)4 of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972, though held the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Single Judge in FA No.59 of 1976 having been abated, but subsequently considering the interim application filed in Misc. Case No.173 of 1993, this Court passed a further order on 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1 by holding that adoption of Defendant No.3 in the suit so recorded by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court stands affirmed. Not only that judgment of the Single Judge, affirming the decision of the learned Trial Judge so far as it relates to properties of village Gopinathpur as well as house located in Puri was also affirmed. 3. 4. It is contended that after disposal of the AHO vide order dated 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1, Opp. Party No.1 filed Objection Case No.1155 of 1995 and 1156 of 1995 under Section 9 of the OCH and PFL Act with a prayer to record Suit Plot No.153/481 area Ac.0.180 dec. in his favour in Objection Case No.1155 of 1995 and to record Suit Plot No.157 Area Ac.0.104 dec. under Khata No.49, both in Mouza- Bentapur taking into account the sale deed executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970 and 2326 dated 23.03.1967. 3. 5. However, both the objection cases were rejected by the learned C.O., Puri vide order dated 14.11.1996 under Annexure-4. It is contended that Opp. Party No.1 challenging the common order passed on 14.11.1996 in Objection Case No.1155 & 1156 of 1995, moved the Court of learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Puri In Appeal Case No.97 and 98 of 1996. 3. 6. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Puri vide a common order dated 24.07.1997 under Annexure-5, when allowed both the appeals so filed by the Opp. 3. 6. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Puri vide a common order dated 24.07.1997 under Annexure-5, when allowed both the appeals so filed by the Opp. Party No.1, the present petitioners challenging the same, moved the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.290 and 291 of 1997. But the Revisional Court- Opp. Party No.3 without proper appreciation of the petitioners’ claim and the order passed by this Court on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, dismissed both the Revision Petitions vide a common order dated 29.08.1998 under Annexure-6. Challenging the common order passed in Revision Case No.290 and 291 of 1997, both the Writ Petitions have been filed. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that taking into account the order passed by this Court on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988 under Annexure-1, claim of the private Opp. Party No.1, could not have been allowed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 vide order dated 24.07.1997 under Annexure-5 and confirmation of the same by Opp. Party No.3 while dismissing both the Revision cases under Annexure-6. 3. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Sale Deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967, was the subject matter of challenge in O.S. No.49 of 1974. Learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit for preliminary partition vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.1975, clearly held that such transfer made by the Vendor-Narayan Mohanty in favour of the Vendees, Defendant No.2, 4 to 7 were not for legal necessity and would not bind on the plaintiffs/petitioners. Such order passed by the Trial Court on being challenged by Narayan Mohanty and others in FA No.59 of 1976, the First Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.1987 under Annexure-3. 3. 9. However, this Court while dealing with AHO No.6 of 1988 and vide order dated 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1, affirmed the decision of the learned Trial Court so far as it relates to the properties of Village-Gopinathpur as well as the House located in Puri Town is concerned. On the face of such order passed by this Court on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, learned Consolidation Officer rightly rejected the claim of the private Opp. Party No.1 for recording of the land in question situated in Mouza-Bentapur in his favour vide order under Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. On the face of such order passed by this Court on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, learned Consolidation Officer rightly rejected the claim of the private Opp. Party No.1 for recording of the land in question situated in Mouza-Bentapur in his favour vide order under Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. But the Appellate Authority vide a common order dated 24.07.1997 under Annexure-5 without proper appreciation of the order passed under Annexure-1 allowed the claim of private Opp. Party No.1. Similarly, the Revisional Authority also dismissed both the Revision cases, so filed by the present petitioners challenging the order of the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-6. 3. 10. It is contended that on the face of the order dated 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988 under Annexure-1, the Revisional Court-Opp. Party No.3 could not have dismissed both the Revisions by confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that order passed by the Revisional Court-Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-6, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-5, requires interference of this Court. 4 . Learned counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party No.1 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that in O.S. No.49 of 1974, the present petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the sale deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 and no such challenge was made to the sale deed executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970, with regard to Suit Plot No.153/481 of Area Ac.0.180 dec. in Mouza-Bentapur. 4 .1. It is also contended that even though this Court vide order dated 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, confirmed the Lower Court finding so far as the property situated in Mouza-Gopinathpur and the House situated in Puri Town, but no such order was passed, so far as the suit land situated in Mouza-Bentapur is concerned. 4 .2. It is contended that Opp. Party No.1 basing on the order passed by this Court on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, moved the Consolidation Authority by filing objection under Section 9 of the Act and with a prayer to record the suit land situated in Mouza-Bentapur vide Suit Plot No.153/481 and Suit Plot No.157. Private Opp. Party No.1 raised such claim for recording taking into account the sale deed executed by Lt. Private Opp. Party No.1 raised such claim for recording taking into account the sale deed executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970 and RSD No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 and in view of the notification issued U/s.4(4) of the Act. 4 .3. It is contended that RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970 so executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty, was never challenged by the petitioners and it is also not under challenge in O.S. No.49 of 1974. Even though RSD No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 was challenged in O.S. No.49 of 1974, but in view of the order dated 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, the decree passed in respect of the suit land situated in Mouza-Bentapur was never affirmed. 4 .4. Since Suit Plot No.153/481 in Mouza-Bentapur so purchased by Opp. Party No.1 vide RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970 was never an issue in O.S. No.49 of 1974, the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.49 of 1974, so confirmed by this Court in FA No.59 of 1976 and further order passed on 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988, is not at all applicable to such claim of the private Opp. Party No.1 for recording of the land to his name which was rightly allowed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 vide order under Annexure-5, further confirmed by the Revisional Authority with dismissal of the Revisions so filed by the present petitioners under Annexure-6. 4 .5. So far as Plot No.157 under Khata No.49 in Mouza-Bentapur is concerned, the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.49 of 1974, confirmed by this Court in FAO No.59 of 1976, was never affirmed by this Court in its order dated 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988. Since Suit Plot No.153/481, in Mouza- Bentapur arising out of RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970, was never an issue in OS No.49/1974 and Suit Plot No.157, situates in Mouza-Bentapur, was never affirmed by this Court in its order dated 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-5 and 6 in both the cases. It is also contended that after disposal of the AHO vide order dated 05.08.1994 by this Court, no final decree proceeding has been initiated, to make the preliminary decree final. 5 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Lt. It is also contended that after disposal of the AHO vide order dated 05.08.1994 by this Court, no final decree proceeding has been initiated, to make the preliminary decree final. 5 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Lt. Narayan Mohanty the common ancestor of the petitioners when transferred Suit Scheduled “Ka” and “Kha” property in favour of Defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 7, vide sale deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967, challenging the sale deed as an illegal sale deed and seeking partition of the Suit Schedule “Ka” and “Kha” property, the present petitioners filed O.S. No.49 of 1974 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Puri. Transfer made by Lt. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.10099 dated 18.12.1970, was never an issue in the aforesaid suit. 5 .1. Even though Sale Deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 was never declared as illegal by the learned Trial Court so affirmed by this Court in FA No.59 of 1976, but a finding was given that such transfer of the land by Lt. Narayan Mohanty is not for legal necessity. 5 .2. However, this Court in its order dated 05.08.1994 in AHO No.6 of 1988 under Annexure-1, affirmed the judgment and decree so far as the suit land situated in Mouza-Gopinathpur and House situated in Puri Town is concerned. No such decree has been passed and affirmed so far as the suit land in Mouza-Bentapur is concerned. 5 .3. Since private Opp. Party No.1 filed the Objection Cases for recording of the suit land situated at Mouza-Bentapur basing on RSD No.10099 dtd.18.12.1970 and RSD No.2326 dated 23.03.1967, this Court taking into account the fact that RSD dated18.12.1970 was never under challenge, finds no illegality or irregularity with the direction to record suit Plot No.153/481, in Mouza- Bentapur in the name of private Opp. Party No.1 by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-5, so confirmed by the Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-6. 5 .4. Similarly, Suit Plot No.157 in Mouza-Bentapur under Khata No.49, transferred by Lt. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.2326 dated 23.03.1967, was never affirmed by this Court while disposing the AHO vide order dated 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1 and such a sale deed was never declared as illegal either by Trial Court or by the Appellate Court, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed by the Opp. Narayan Mohanty vide RSD No.2326 dated 23.03.1967, was never affirmed by this Court while disposing the AHO vide order dated 05.08.1994 under Annexure-1 and such a sale deed was never declared as illegal either by Trial Court or by the Appellate Court, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5, confirmed by Opp. Party No.3 vide order under Annexure-6 in that regard. 5 .5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned orders passed by Opp. Party No.2 and 3 under Annexure-5 and 6 and not inclined to interfere with the said orders and dismiss both the Writ Petitions. 6 . Both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed accordingly.