The judgment established the legal principle that the customary law of primogeniture is still in force in the royal family of Keonjhar even after the merger of the state and the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Parichha, J. - The successors of the original Plaintiff are in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1995 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Suit No. 96 of 1993.

2. The original Plaintiff, Satis Chandra Sarangi filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over Schedule 'B' land of the plaint (suit land), for permanent injunction against Defendant-respondent No. 1 and for declaring the sale deed No. 342 dated 12.2.1993 as illegal and void. Plaintiff's case was that his father Manikar Sarangi was the Guru of Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo of Keonjhar and the said Rajmata out of affection and good-will gifted Schedule 'A' land measuring Ac.0.12 dec. on plot No. 179, Khata No. 48 to him and his father Manikar vide gift deed No. 1731 dated 15.12.1951; and accordingly he and his father possessed Schedule 'A' land and constructed a house thereon. Plaintiff pleaded that he also possessed Schedule 'B' land which adjoins the Schedule 'A' land laying a foundation on that land for construction of his house. He claimed that by remaining in possession of this suit land openly for more than 30 years he acquired title over the same by adverse possession, -bot -defendant No. 1 in the 3rd week of March, 1993 suddenly claimed right over Schedule 'B' land on the plea that Defendant No. 2 through his power of attorney holder sold Ac.0.06 dec. out of plot No. 178 of Khata No. 29 including the suit land in favour of Defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 342 dated 12.2.1993 and wanted to raise construction of a club thereon. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 2 never inherited the 'Gadi' of State of Keonjhar and had no saleable right in the suit property. In such situation, in order to clear the position and to protect his right, the Plaintiff filed the above noted suit.

3. Defendant No. 3, daughter of Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo did not file any written statement and was set ex parte. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit Schedule 'B' land was never possessed by the Plaintiff and he never acquired title over the same by adverse possession. They also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation and the suit land described in the plaint is indefinite. They also pleaded that Defendant No. 2 succeeded to the estate of Late Raja N.N. Bhanjdeo in the year 1981 as per the custom prevalent in the Royal Dynasty and became absolute owner thereof and that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the right and title of Defendant No. 2 over the suit land and other properties of the estate when Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo or her daughter never challenged the same.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, nine issues were framed. After considering the evidence led by the parties, learned Civil Judge decided some of the technical issues, such as, maintainability, limitation, unvaluation etc. in favour of the Plaintiff, but held that the Plaintiffs never acquired any title over the suit property by way of adverse possession, the sale deed No. 342 dated 10.2.1993 is not invalid or void. Learned Civil Judge also held that the suit suffers from indefiniteness in the description of the suit property. He, accordingly, dismissed the suit. That judgment and decree having been confirmed in first appeal, the Appellant has filed the present Second Appeal. It is worthwhile to mention here that during tendency of the 1st appeal, appellant-appellant died and the present Appellants were substituted as his legal heirs.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration in this appeal.

Whether non-consideration of the documents, Exts.1 and 2 by the appellate court would vitiate the finding?

However, at