The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless shown to be perverse, thus upholding the judgment confirming possession of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and he was the appellant No.2 before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.

The respondent Nos.1 to 9 of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs as well as the successors of some of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and they were the respondents Nos.1 to 5(f) before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.

The respondent Nos.10 to 13 are the substituted LRs of the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and they were the respondent Nos. 6(a) to 6(d) before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the respondent Nos.1 to 9 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction, confirmation of possession, in alternative partition.

4. According to the plaintiffs, Bhagat Naik was their common ancestor. The said Bhagat Naik died leaving behind his three sons i.e. Lachman, Nanda and Suru. Lachman is the son of Bhagat Naik through his first wife. Nanda and Suru are the sons of Bhagat Naik through his second wife.

Lachman died leaving behind his four sons i.e. Balaram, Jagannath, Narasing & Suttam.

Nanda died leaving behind his three sons i.e. Balaram, Khagapati (defendant No.1) and Parsuram (defendant No.2).

Balaram died leaving behind his two wives i.e. Neelabati (plaintiff No.1) and Purni (plaintiff No.2) along with his three daughters i.e. Gurubati (plaintiff No.3), Padma (plaintiff No.4) and Ratnabati (plaintiff No.5).

The defendant No.3 (Lakshman) is the son of defendant No.1 (khagapati).

The third son of Bhagat Naik i.e. Suru Naik died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Padlav and kenei.

5. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for an easy understanding and as well as for an instant reference, the family pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendants is depicted hereunder:-

6. According to the plaintiffs, the parties to the suit are guided and governed by Mitraskhara School of Hindu Law. Their total ancestral properties were Ac.103.27 cents under Khata No.83 containing different plots at village Churahandi.

About 60 years back, the three sons of Bhagat Naik, i.e., Lachman, Nanda and Suru partitioned their Ac.103.27 cents of their ancestral properties and as per such partition, Lachman was allotted with Ac.58.49 cents in his share being the first son of the Bhagat through his first wife.

Nanda and Suru were jointly allotted with Ac.44.78 cents being the two sons of Bhagat through his second wife.

After such partition, Nanda and Suru possessed their allotted Ac.44.78 cents of land jointly. But, subsequent thereto, about 25 years back, Nanda and Suru divided their Ac.44.78 cents of land between them and as per such division, Nanda was allotted with Ac.27.73 cents and the rest land i.e. Ac.17.05 cents were allotted to Suru.

The properties, those had fallen into the share of Suru has been described in schedule ‘A’. The said properties are not the disputed suit properties.

After allotment of Ac.27.73 cents of land in the share of Nanda, the said Nanda along with his children including the plaintiffs and defendants possessed the same jointly and that allotted properties in the share of Nanda has been described in schedule ‘A-1’ of the plaint. Subsequent thereto, when disturbances started between the children of Nanda i.e. between the plaintiffs and defendants i.e. between three sons of Nanda i.e. Balaram, Khagapati (defendant No.1) and Parsuram (defendant No.2), then, they partitioned the