HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

RSA NO.164 OF 2022 - (I)

&

RSA No.184 of 2022 - (II)

In the matter of appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2022 and

13.05.2022 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in

RFA No.70 of 2019 setting aside the judgment and decree dated

28.03.2019 and 05.04.2019 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Balasore in C.S. No.631 of 2011-I (6371 of 2014).

………

RSA NO.164 OF 2022

Rehana Bibi

::::

Appellant.

-:: VERSUS ::-

Shikharani Singh & Others

:::: Respondents.

RSA NO.184 OF 2022

Sultan Beg

::::

Appellant.

-:: VERSUS ::-

Shikharani Singh & Others.

:::: Respondents.

Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by hybrid arrangement

(virtual/physical) mode.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant

…

Mr. Soumya Mishra,

Advocate in RSA No. 164 of 2022

…

Mr.Ashok Kumar Dash,

Advocate in RSA No.184 of 2022.

For Respondents

…

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate,

(Caveator-Respondent No.1)

in RSA Nos.164 & 184 of 2022.

…

Mr. A.K. Dash, Advocate,

(R-6) in RSA No.164 of 2022.

…

Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate

(R-6) in RSA no.184 of 2022.

{{ 2 }}

Page 2 of 22

CORAM :

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Judgment: 27.01.2023

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.Dash,J. Since both these Appeals as at (I) and (II) arise out of one suit, i.e.,

C.S. No.631 of 2011 of the Court of the First Additional (Senior Civil

Judge), Balasore giving rise to one Frist Appeal, i.e., R.F.A. No.70 of

2019; those were heard together for their disposal by this common

judgment.

The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific

performance of contract praying therein to direct the Appellants and

others (Defendants) to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the

suit land described in schedule ‘Ka’ and for permanent injunction. The

suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.631 of 2011- (I) having been dismissed by the

learned First Additional (Senior Civil Judge), Balasore by its judgment

and decree dated 28.03.2919 and 05.04.2019 respectively; the Respondent

No.1 as the unsuccessful Plaintiff had filed the Appeal under section 96

of the Code. That Appeal numbered as RFA No.70 of 2009 having been

allowed by the learned District Judge, Balasore vide judgment and decree

dated 07.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 respectively and the suit thus having

been decreed granting the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) all the reliefs

which she had claimed; the Appellant as the Defendant No.3 has filed this

{{ 3 }}

Page 3 of 22

Second Appeal as at (I) and another Defendant, i.e., Defendant No.5 as

the Appellant has filed as at (II).

At this stage, it be stated that the original Defendant No.1, namely,

Sk. Idris is the son of deceased Hanifan Bibi whereas the rest Defendants

are the two daughters of said Hanifan. Said Idris having died during

pendency of the suit, his legal representatives have been arraigned as

Defendant No.1 (Ka) to 1 (Gha) and they are now the Respondent Nos.2

to 5. These two Appellants (Defendant Nos.3 and 5) are the sisters of

said deceased Defendant No.1, the predecessors-in-interest of the

Respondents Nos.1 to 5 (Defendant No.1 (Ka) to 1 (Gha).

2.

For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring

in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been

arraigned in the Trial Court.

3.

Plaintiffs case is that the suit land described in schedule ‘Ka’ of the

plaint was the exclusive property of Hanifan Bibi who is the predecessor-

in-interest of original Defendant Nos.1 and the Defendant Nos.2 as well

as the Defendant No. 3. The said property stood recorded in her name in

the record of right. It is said that while possessi