Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Sahu vs Joginath Sahu & Others on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A No.320 of 2005
In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908
Sanjukta Sahu .... Appellant
-versus-
Joginath Sahu & others .... Respondents
Appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondents : None
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing :11.03.2026 / date of judgment : 10.04.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The respondent No.1 in this 2nd appeal (Joginath Sahu) was the
sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit
No.26 of 1997 and appellant before the learned 1st Appellate Court in the
1st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.
The respondent No.3 (Bhagaban Sahu) in this 2nd appeal was the
defendant No.2 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit
// 2 //
No.26 of 1997 and respondent No.2 before the learned 1st Appellate
Court in the 1st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.
The respondent No.2 in this 2nd appeal i.e. Manguli Sahu was the
defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit
No.26 of 1997 and the respondent No.1 before the learned 1st Appellate
Court in the first appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.
When during the pendency of the 2nd appeal, Manguli Sahu
expired, then the appeal is continuing between the appellant and
respondent Nos.1 and 3.
The appellant in this 2nd appeal (Sanjukta Sahu) was the defendant
No.3 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of
1997 and respondent No.3 before the learned 1st Appellate Court vide
Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.
3. The suit of the plaintiff – Joginath Sahu (respondent No.1 in this
2nd appeal) vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 against the defendants before
the learned Trial Court was a suit for declaration.
As per the case of the plaintiff, his grandfather was Khali Sahu.
Khali Sahu had three sons i.e. Sanatan Sahu, Manguli Sahu (defendant
No.1) and Abhiram Sahu.
Page 2 of 20
// 3 //
Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) is the father of the plaintiff
(Joginath Sahu). Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) has two sons i.e.
plaintiff (Joginath Sahu) and defendant No.2 (Bhagaban Sahu).
Defendant No.3 (Sanjukta Sahu) is the wife of the defendant No.2
(Bhagaban Sahu).
The suit properties along with other properties were the ancestral
properties of his grandfather (Khali Sahu). After the death of Khali Sahu,
the suit properties along with their other ancestral properties devolved
upon his three sons i.e. Santan Sahu, Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) and
Abhiram Sahu.
On the basis of the partition of the ancestral properties between
him (Manguli Sahu – defendant No.1) and his two brothers, the suit
properties along with some other properties fell into the share of Manguli
Sahu (defendant No.1).
As such, the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the
plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 (Manguli Sahu) being
the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 was the Karta of their joint
family. The suit Plot No.222 is Ac.0.02 dec. which is their Bari land, the
same adjoining to suit Plot No.223 Ac.0.01 dec. of their Ghara land.
The parties are Hindus and their sub-caste is Teli and their
profession is business. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are two
Page 3 of 20
// 4 //
brothers and they are doing their own separate business at Birat Bazar
and Kedarswar Bazar respectively and they (Plaintiff and defendant no.2)
are in separate mess.
In the year 1976, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 i.e.
defendant No.1 went to Charibatia for business purpose along with the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 and stayed there. The plaintiff and the
defendant No.2 are also staying at Charibatia.
The defendant No.1 (Manguli Sahu) has imbalanced mind. So,
taking the advantage of the imbalanced mind of the defendant No.1, the
defendant No.2 managed to execute sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 in
respect of the suit properties from him (defendant No.1-Manguli Sahu) in
favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.3 (Sanjukta Sahu) without the
knowledge of the defendant No.1 relating to the execution and
registration of the said sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 in
respect of the suit properties. Subsequent thereto, when the plaintiff came
to know about the execution of such fictitious sale deed in respect of the
suit properties from Manguli Sahu (defendant No.1) in favour of
Sanjukta Sahu (defendant No.3), he (plaintiff) asked about the same to
the defendant Nos.2 and 3, but they paid deaf ear to the same. For which,
he (plaintiff) applied for the certified copy of the said sale deed No.408
dated 5.2.1996 and obtained the same on 9.1.1997. From the said
Page 4 of 20
// 5 //
certified copy of the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996, he (plaintiff) was
sure that, the defendant No.2 (Bhagaban Sahu) has managed to execute
and register the said sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 in respect of the
suit properties from the defendant No.1 (Manguli Sahu) by practicing
fraud and misrepresenting him (defendant No.1) and narrating false
things in that sale deed without payment of any consideration amount to
the defendant No.1 and without taking the delivery of possession of the
suit properties. The suit properties are the joint house and homestead land
of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same has not been
partitioned/divided between them. So, the defendant No.1 executed and
registered a deed of cancellation bearing No.148 dated 13.1.1997
cancelling the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 in favour of the
defendant No.3. In spite of cancellation of the sale deed No.408 dated
5.2.1996 by the defendant No.1 through deed of cancellation No.148
dated 13.1.1997, the defendant No.3 applied for mutation of the suit
properties to her name on the basis of the sale deed No.408 dated
5.2.1996 in her favour by filing Mutation Case No.449 of 1996 before
the Tahasildar, Banki, to which, the plaintiff objected, for which, the said
Mutation Case No.449 of 1996 of the defendant No.3 was disallowed by
the Tahsildar, Banki on dated 22.4.1997. Thereafter, he (plaintiff)
approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of
Page 5 of 20
// 6 //
1997 against the defendants praying for a declaration that, the sale deed
No.408 dated 5.2.1996 said to have been executed by the defendant No.1
in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties as void
and to intimate the Registering Officer about the same along with other
reliefs, to which, he (plaintiff) is entitled for.
4. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement supporting the case
of the plaintiff taking his stands in his written statement that, the plaintiff
and the defendant No.2 are his two sons and he is the Karta of his joint
family. Since 1976, he left for Charibatia for business purpose with the
plaintiff and the defendant No.2. In due course of time, the plaintiff and
the defendant No.2 i.e. his both sons are doing business separately and
independently. As he (defendant No.1) is old, for which, he required
assistance of his sons. His both sons i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant
No.2 were/are not pulling well with each other, for which, he (defendant
No.1) tried for settlement of their disputes through local gentries, but the
same was not fruitful. On 5.2.1996, he was seriously ill. His youngest
son Bhagaban Sahu (defendant No.2) brought him to Cuttack for the
execution of a power of attorney from him in his favour to manage his
business. When he (defendant No.1) reached at Cuttack, the so-called
sale deed was already scribed by the Moharir of the defendant No.2. The
same was not read over and explained to him (defendant No.1). He had
Page 6 of 20
// 7 //
signed on the said sale deed on good faith according to the say of his son
(defendant No.2). Later, he could know that, the said sale deed is a false
one and the defendant No.2 has managed to execute the same in favour
of his wife i.e. defendant No.3. After knowing about the same, he
(defendant No.1) cancelled to that sale deed on dated 13.1.1997 through
a registered deed of cancellation. For which, the defendant No.3 has no
interest in the suit land. So, the said sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 is
to be declared as void.
5. The defendant Nos.2 and 3, both husband and wife, were set ex
parte. Though, they (defendant Nos.2 and 3) had filed their joint written
statement, but the same was not accepted by the learned trial court.
In the said suit vide T.S No.26 of 1997 altogether five numbers of
issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and the said issues are:-
ISSUES
1. Is the suit maintainable?
2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit ?
3. Is the registered sale deed no.408 dated 5.2.1996 void being
tainted with fraud ?
4. Has the plaintiff right, title, interest over the suit land?
5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the
plaintiff against the defendant Nos.2 and 3, he (plaintiff) examined four
Page 7 of 20
// 8 //witnesses from his side as P.Ws.1 to 4 including him as P.W.1 and
exhibited two documents on his behalf vide Exts.1 and 2.
The defendant No.1 had also adduced evidence as D.W.1 and had
relied upon the document vide Ext.A.
7. After conclusion of hearing, an ex parte judgment and decree was
passed in that suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 against the defendant
Nos.2 and 3, to which, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 challenged by
preferring an appeal vide Title Appeal No.35 of 2000.
That appeal vide Title Appeal No.35 of 2000 filed by the
defendant Nos.2 and 3 was allowed and the ex parte judgment and
decree passed in that suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 was set aside and
the Title Suit No.26 of 1997 was remanded back to the learned Trial
Court for its re-trial giving a scope to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for
participating in the hearing of the arguments of the said suit without
filing any written statement.
8. Accordingly, after hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial
Court dismissed that suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 of the plaintiff on
contest as per its judgment and decree dated 3.1.2003 and 21.01.2003
respectively answering all the issues against the plaintiff assigning the
reasons that :-
Page 8 of 20
// 9 //
“The plaintiff has failed to plead and prove relating to the so
called fraud alleged to have been practiced by the defendant
No.2 for the execution and registration of the sale deed No.408
dated 5.2.1996 (Ext.1) in respect of the suit properties from the
defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3. For which
through that sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996, title of the suit
properties was conveyed in favour of the defendant No.3 and as
such defendant no.3 has title in the suit properties. Therefore,
the registered sale deed bearing No.408 dated 5.2.1996
executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3
in respect of the suit properties is not tainted with fraud. So the
plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit.
When the suit land still remains in jointness, it is open to
him (plaintiff) to seek for the relief i.e. partition of the suit land,
but the plaintiff has not done so. For which, he (plaintiff) is
disentitled to the declaratory relief as prayed for in view of the
Proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.”
9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid dismissal of the suit of the
plaintiff passed by the learned Trial Court, he (plaintiff) challenged the
same preferring the first appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 being
the appellant against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 arraying them as
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also arraying defendant No.1 as the
respondent No.1.
10. After hearing from both the sides, learned 1st Appellate Court
allowed that First Appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 of the
Page 9 of 20
// 10 //
plaintiff-appellant as per its judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and
12.07.2005 respectively and set aside to the judgment and decree of the
dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 passed
by the learned Trial Court and decreed the said suit vide Title Suit No.26
of 1997 of the plaintiff and declared the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996
(Ext.1) executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3
in respect of the suit properties as void and cancelled the same and
intimated such cancellation to the concerned Sub-Registrar, assigning the
reasons that,
“the suit properties are the joint family Gharabari land, wherein
the plaintiff has a share and as the defendant No.1 has cancelled the sale
deed vide Ext.1 through a deed of cancellation vide Ext.A and as the
defendant No.1 is a fickle minded person having no independent mind to
take proper decision, for which, the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996
vide Ext.1 executed by him in favour of defendant No.3 is void”.
11. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated
30.06.2005 and 12.07.2005 respectively passed by the learned 1st
Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant No.3, the defendant No.3 challenged the same
preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellant against the plaintiff and the
Page 10 of 20
// 11 //
defendant No.1 arraying them as respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also
arraying her husband (defendant No.2) as proforma respondent No.3.
12. This 2nd appeal was admitted on 01.05.2007 on formulation of the
following substantial questions of law:-
“1. Whether the findings of the learned 1st appellate court that the
sale deed, Ext.1 is void without recording any specific finding on the
allegation of fraud and misrepresentation is legally tenable ?
2. Whether the learned 1st appellate court committed error of record
and approached the issue in a perverse manner?”
When during the pendency of this 2nd appeal, the respondent No.2
(Manguli Sahu) expired, then the appeal has been continuing for other
parties.
13. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant
(defendant No.3) only, as, none appeared from the side of the respondent
Nos.1 and 3 to participate in the hearing of this 2nd appeal.
14. When, the findings and observations made by the learned Trial
Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court in their respective judgments
and decrees on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, both the
aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are inter-linked having
ample nexus with each other, then both the aforesaid formulated
substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their
discussions hereunder:
Page 11 of 20
// 12 //
15. It is the own case of the plaintiff that, the suit properties are his
ancestral properties and the suit properties have not been
divided/partitioned between him (plaintiff), his father (defendant No.1)
and his brother (defendant No.2) through any metes and bounds
partition. He (plaintiff), defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have equal
interest/share in the suit properties.
The plaintiff (P.W.1) has deposed in his evidence by stating that,
“the suit properties are his ancestral properties”.
The witnesses of the plaintiff i.e. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have also
deposed specifically in their respective evidence that, “the parties i.e.
plaintiff and the defendants are in possession over the suit properties
jointly”.
16. The above evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses is
corroborating to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the same is going to
show that, the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the
parties and they are possessing the same jointly. The suit properties have
not been partitioned/divided between them through any metes and
bounds partition.
Now it will be seen,
Whether, there is material in the record to show about the
execution and registration of the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide
Page 12 of 20
// 13 //
Ext.1 by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of
the suit properties with his intention and knowledge of such execution or
without his intention and knowledge about the execution and whether by
the unilateral cancellation of the said deed through the deed of
cancellation dated 13.1.1997 vide Ext.A, the legal effect of the sale deed
No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 has been wiped out.
17. The plaintiff (P.W.1) has specifically deposed in Para No.4 of his
deposition that,
when his father (defendant No.1) realized the mistake regarding
the execution of the impugned sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide
Ext.1, then he executed and registered the deed of cancellation vide
Ext.A.
18. The defendant No.1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief by
stating that,
the sale deed vide Ext.1 was executed by him on the impression
that, he is executing power of attorney, for which, on dated 13.1.1997, he
executed the registered deed of cancellation bearing deed of cancellation
No.148 dated 13.1.1997 vide Ext.A cancelling the sale deed No.408
dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1.
The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is going to show about the
execution of the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 by the
Page 13 of 20
// 14 //
defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit
properties with the intention and knowledge of the defendant No.1 about
such execution, for the reason that, when the defendant No.1 realized
that, he (defendant No.1) has committed a mistake executing the sale
deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 subsequent to its execution and registration,
he (defendant No.1) cancelled the same through the deed of cancellation
vide Ext.A.
As such, the execution of the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 by
the defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.3 with the intention
and knowledge of the defendant No.1 about such execution and
registration in respect of the suit properties is established.
Now it will be seen, what is the legal effect of unilateral
cancellation of the sale deed by the defendant No.1 through execution
and registration of the deed of cancellation bearing No.148 dated
13.1.1997, vide Ext.A.
19. The legal effect of an unilateral deed of cancellation has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(i) In a case between Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another
vrs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in
(2010) (15) SCC 207 that,Cancellation of sale deed and registration of the same
was wholly void and non-est and can be ignored altogether;
There was no need for the appellants to approach the
civil court as the said cancelation deed dated 4.8.2005 as well
Page 14 of 20
// 15 //
as registration of the same was wholly void and non-est and
can be ignored altogether.
(ii) In a case between M/s.V.Marc India Limited vrs. Jaan
Illahi and Another reported in 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 190
(Uttarakhand) that,
Cancellation of a registered sale deed by the executant
unilaterally on the ground that he was not of stable mind at the
time of execution of the same, the said cancellation of
registered sale deed on the ground that executant was not of
stable mind is not a ground for cancellation of a duly
registered document.
(iii) In a case between Satya Pal Anand vrs. State of Madya
Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 that,
There is no express provision in the Registration Act,
1908 which empowers the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to recall
or cancel any registered deed.
The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In the
absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open that, the
Registrar or Sub-Registrar would be competent to cancel the registration
of the documents in question.
When unilateral cancellation of a sale deed already executed deed
by the vendor is not permissible under law, then at this juncture by
applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions to this suit/appeal at hand, it is held that, the unilateral deed of
cancellation No.148 dated 13.1.1997 vide Ext.A is held as non est in the
eye of law and the same has no legal value. For which, the said deed of
cancellation vide Ext.A is excluded from the zone of consideration.
Page 15 of 20
// 16 //
20. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is
held that, the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff
and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have equal share in the same and
the said suit properties have not been divided/partitioned between them
as yet, then at this juncture, it will be seen, whether the sale deed No.408
dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 executed by the defendant No.1 in respect of
the suit properties in favour of the wife of the defendant No.2 i.e.
defendant No.3 is void or not.
21. It is very much clear as per the mandate of Section 44 of the T.P
Act, 1882 that, a co-owner (co-sharer) is entitled to alienate his
undivided share in the joint properties without acknowledging the rights
of his/her co-owners in the sale deed. Such sale deed will not become
void or voidable at the option of other co-owners.
On this aspect, proposition of law has already been clarified in the
ratio of the following decisions.
(i) In a case between Sitarani Rath vrs. The Inspector
General of Registration, Odisha and Ors. reported in 120
(2015) CLT 1069 that,
Joint family property – Transfer of immovable property
by one of the co-owners is legally competent in that behalf.
Held. Transfer is valid to the extent of the share of the
transferor.
(ii) In a case between Dillip Kumar Sahoo vrs. Smt. Malati
Rout and others reported in 2013 (1) CLR 570 that,
Page 16 of 20
// 17 //
Transfer by one of the co-owners remains valid to the
extent of the share of the transferor.
(iii) In a case between Sk. Golam Lalchand vrs. Nandu Lal
Shaw alias Nand Lal Keshri alias Nandu Lal Bayes and
Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2456 that,
Joint properties not partitioned, the owners right to
transfer to limited to his share and not beyond that.
(iv) In a case between Gangu Bai Raghunath Ayare vrs.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Theirs Lrs And Ors.
reported in 2025 (3) Civil Law Judgments 211 (Supreme
Court) that,
Registered sale deed executed by one co-sharer shall be
valid for her share – purchaser cannot claim the entire
properties which was the subject-matter of transfer by sale in
view of Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882.
(v) In a case between Dhabal Prasad Pradhan vrs. Sate of
Odisha and others reported in 2014 (II) OLR 902 that,
Transfer passes forthwith all the interest of the
transferor in favour of transferee and in the legal incidents
thereof.
(vi) In the case between Gorakh Nath Dubey vrs. Hari
Narain Singh and others reported in AIR 1973 SC 2451 that,
Transfer by co-owner excess to his/her share – An
alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the
extent of the excess of power, is invalid.
(vii) In a case between Gananath Sahu &another Vrs. Smt.
Bulli Sahu & others reported in 1974(1) C.W.R. 222 that,
Transfer of property more than the transferor’s interest
in lands jointly held with others is not invalid in toto. It would
be valid and operative to the extent of the transferor’s interest
in the lands.
(viii) In a case between Gurdeep Singh & others vrs.
Kulwant Singh & others reported in 2018 (1) Civil Court
Cases 546 (P&H) that,
Sale of specific portion of land – no co-share was
recorded to be in possession of any specific portion of the joint
Page 17 of 20
// 18 //
land – Since the vendors were not in exclusive possession of
any portion of the joint land, they could not deliver possession
of any such portion and the recitals regarding delivery of
possession would create only symbolic possession of the
purchaser even sale is made for specific portion of land would
amount to sale of only a share in the joint land.
(ix) In a case between Jal Singh & others vrs. Gurmej
Singh reported in 2010 (I) CLR (SC) 319 that,
When a co-share sells his share in the joint holding or any
portion thereof and puts the vendee into possession of the land
in his possession what he transfers is his right as a co-sharer in
the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession
till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.
(x) In a case between FGP Ltd. Vrs. Saleh Hooseini
Doctor &Anr. 2009 (4) Civil L.T 1 (SC) that,
Co-owner of property is an owner of property till property is
partitioned. (Para-46)
22. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is
held that, the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the
parties and the defendant No.1 has executed a registered sale deed
No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 in respect of the suit properties in
favour of the defendant No.3 and when Section 44 of the T.P Act, 1882
empowers a co-owner like the defendant No.1 for alienation of his
undivided interest in the joint suit properties and when in view of the
clarifications made in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, sale made by
the co-owner without consent of his other co-owners shall remain valid
only to the extent of his/her share and when, even if, a co-owner sells a
specific portion of the joint and undivided properties like the suit
properties or sells the entire joint suit properties in excess of his share,
Page 18 of 20
// 19 //
still then, it will be held as per law that, he has transferred/alienated only
his interest in the suit properties and the said sale deed shall remain valid
to the extent of the share of the vendor like the defendant No.1 and the
vendee thereof like the defendant No.3 shall be entitled to get the joint
interest in the suit properties without any specific portion in the said joint
and undivided suit properties and when the said sale deed No.408 dated
5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 is neither void nor voidable as per law, then at this
juncture, the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1 st Appellate
Court holding that, the sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 as void as well
as cancellation thereof cannot be sustainable under law, as the said sale
deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 vide Ext.1 is neither void nor voidable, but
the transfer/alienation made through the same by defendant No.1 in
favour of the defendant No.3 is valid to the extent of the interest/share of
the defendant No.1 in the joint suit properties.
For which the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
learned 1st Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 reversing the
judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of
1997 of the plaintiff cannot be sustainable under law.
So, there is justification under law for making interference with
the same through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant (defendant No.3
of the suit).
Page 19 of 20
// 20 //
As such, there is merit in the 2nd appeal filed by the appellant
(defendant No.3). The same must succeed.
23. In the result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellant (defendant No.3)
is allowed on merit.
24. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and
12.07.2005 respectively passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in
Title Appeal No. 23 of 2003 is set aside.
25. The judgment and decree dated 3.1.2003 and 21.1.2003
respectively passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.26 of
1997 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1) is
confirmed.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 10th April, 2026/ Pradeep.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 11-Apr-2026 18:36:12
Page 20 of 20
