The absence of challenge to a sale deed justified the orders of recording land in favor of the Opposite Party, as previous judicial findings did not apply to the current property disputes.

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. 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 und