JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The respondent No.1 in this 2^nd 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 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

The respondent No.3 (Bhagaban Sahu) in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant No.2 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide Title Suit No.26 of 1997 and respondent No.2 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

The respondent No.2 in this 2^nd 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 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide Title Appeal No.23 of 2003.

When during the pendency of the 2^nd appeal, Manguli Sahu expired, then the appeal is continuing between the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 3.

The appellant in this 2^nd 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