Advocates:
['M/S D P MOHANTY', '', 'R K NAYAK', 'T K MOHANTY', 'P K SWAIN', 'M PAL', 'M/S B H MOHANTY SR ADV']

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

R.S.A. No.340 of 2019

In the matter of an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2019 and

29.08.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in

R.F.A. No.166 of 2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016

and 23.07.2016 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Balasore, in C.S. No.548/2010/894 of 2014.

………

Santosh Kumar Das

…

Appellant.

-VERSUS-

Bhaskar Chandra Behera & others

…

Respondents.

Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical) Mode:-

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

For appellant

…

Mr.B.H.Mohanty,

Senior Advocate

M/s.D.P.Mohanty, R.K.Nayak,

T.K.Mohanty, P.K.Swain and

M.Pal

………

P R E S E N T :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

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

Date of Reserve:23.02.2021

:

Date of Judgment:18.03.2021

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

D.Dash,J.

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and

decree 16.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 respectively passed by the learned District

Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.166 of 2016. By the said judgment and decree,

- 2 -

the lower appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated

12.07.2016 and 23.07.2016 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Balasore, in C.S. No.548of 2010/894 of 2014.

The Respondent Nos.1 to 8, as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit

arraigning the Appellant as the principal Defendant, i.e, Defendant No.1

against whom the reliefs had been claimed and he alone had contested the

suit. The other Defendant, i.,e, Defendant No.2 although had filed the written

statement, yet did not nor participate in the hearing of the suit. During the

pendency of the first appeal, said Defendant No.2, who has been arraigned as

Respondent No.9 having died leaving no legal representatives, her name

stood expunged.

2.

For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid

confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as

assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court i.e. the

Appellant as ‘the Defendant No.1’ whereas the Respondents as ‘the

Plaintiffs’.

3.

Rival case of the parties are as follows:-

Plaintiffs’ case is that the immovable property described in Lot

No.1 of the plaint vide RMS Plot No.917 and 914 corresponding to the land

under MS Plot No.844 and 885 as also CS Plot No.389 and 391 had been

purchased by the Plaintiff No.3 by registered sale deed admitted in evidence

and marked as Ext.6.

The immovable property described in Lot No.2 of the plaint

which stood recorded under RMS Plot No.1336, 1322, 1733 correspond to

MS Plot No.706, 707, 708 and 1341 which further correspond to CS Plot

- 3 -

No.483, 484, 492, 443. This property is said to have been purchased by

Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 by registered sale deed which has been admitted in

evidence and marked as Ext.7. It is further stated that the land under RMS

Plot No.1214 corresponding to MS Plot No.1172, further corresponding to

CS Plot No.806 described in Lot No.3 of the plaint was also purchased by

Plaintiff Nos.7 and 8 by registered sale deed under Ext.5.

The plaintiffs have come up with the case that one Bhabani

Prasad Das was the common ancestor of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. He died

leaving behind his sons, namely, Jadaba, Purusottam, Chandramohan,

Kumuda and Sudhakar. Defendant No.2 is the only legal heir and successor

of Jadaba. Purusottam died leaving behind his sons, namely, Sashi, Sasanka,

Sudhir and Santosh (the Defendant No.1).