Orissa High Court
Rama Chandra Behera And Others vs Babu Behera And Others on 22 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.247 of 1987
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
Rama Chandra Behera and others .... Appellants
-versus-
Babu Behera and others .... Respondents
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellants - Mr. A.K. Mishra,
Advocate.
For Respondents - Mr. B. Das,
Advocate.
on behalf of
Mr. N.C. Pati,
Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :29.01.2024 :: Date of Judgment :22.03.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants of this Second Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I. The respondent No.1 of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and he Page 1 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 was the sole appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 of this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I
3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this Second Appeal) before the Trial Court vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.
4. According to the plaintiffs' case, the suit properties were originally belonged to the father of defendant No.1 i.e. Jagannath Behera. That Jagannath Behera (father of defendant No.1) sold the suit properties to the defendant No.4 (Laskhaman Biswal) along with father of the defendant No.5 (Rama Biswal). After purchasing the same, the defendant No.4 and the father of defendant No.5 mutated the suit properties into their names and after mutation, separate R.o.Rs. of the suit properties were prepared jointly in their names and they were paying rent for the same.
Defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 sold the suit properties to the defendant No.1 on dated 16.02.1962 and the sale deed dated 16.02.1962 was executed in the name of his minor son i.e. defendant No.2 (Babu Behera) through the guardianship of defendant Page 2 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 No.1, accordingly, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit properties from the defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 on dated 16.02.1962 in the name of his minor son i.e. defendant No.2 (Babu Behera). Therefore, the defendant No.1 was the real owner of the suit properties, though the same was purchased by the defendant No.1 in the name of his minor son i.e. Babu Behera (defendant No.2). Because, the entire consideration amount of the sale deed dated 16.02.1962 was paid by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.4 and father of the defendant No.5 and since the date of purchase i.e. since 16.02.1962, the defendant No.1 had become the exclusive owner over the suit properties and he was possessing the same exclusively.
But, subsequent thereto, the defendant No.1 sold Lot No.1 of the suit properties to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on dated 26.06.1962 and that registered sale deed dated 26.06.1962 in respect of the Lot No.1 suit properties was executed by the minor defendant No.2 through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 and after selling Lot No.1 suit properties to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 through the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.06.1962, the possession thereof was delivered to the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and since then plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were in possession over Lot No.1 of the suit properties being the owners thereof.
Thereafter, the defendant No.2 sold Lot No.2 suit properties through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 to the defendant No.3 by Page 3 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 executing and registering sale deed on dated 25.07.1964 and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 were the owners of Lot No.1 suit properties and defendant No.3 was the owner of Lot No.2 suit properties.
Thereafter, the defendant No.3 sold the part of his purchased properties i.e. part of Lot No.2 i.e. Ac.0.22 decimals out of Ac.0.32 decimals to the plaintiff No.3 by executing and registering a sale deed on dated 07.06.1969 and that defendant No.3 also sold the rest 0.10 decimals of Lot No.2 suit properties to the defendant No.1 on the same date i.e. on 07.06.1969 by executing and registering a sale deed in his favour.
Thereafter, the above purchased properties i.e. Ac.0.10 decimals (which was purchased by the defendant No.1 on dated 07.06.1969 from the defendant No.3), he (defendant No.1) sold the same to the plaintiff No.3 on dated 17.06.1971. Accordingly, the plaintiffs purchased the entire suit properties through three registered sale deeds i.e. registered sale deed dated 26.06.1962, 07.06.1969 and 17.06.1971. While, the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit properties, the defendant No.1 along with his wife and others forcibly took away the riped paddy crops of the plaintiffs from the suit properties on dated 17.11.1974. For which, a case vide 1.C.C. Case No.63 of 1974 under Section 379 of the IPC, 1860 was initiated by the plaintiffs against the defendant No.1 and Page 4 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 others. Though, the defendant No.1 along with his wife and others forcibly took away the riped paddy crops of the plaintiffs from the suit properties on dated 17.11.1974, but the plaintiffs are possessing the suit properties as before. The final R.o.Rs. of the suit properties were published on 03.06.1976 in the names of the plaintiffs, but forcible possession of the defendant No.2 was indicated erroneously in its remarks column of the suit plots. On the basis of the said illegal noting of possession of the defendant No.2 in the remarks column of the suit plots, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit properties. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I against the defendants praying for declaration of the title of the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 over Lot No.1 suit properties and to declare the title of the plaintiff No.3 over Lot No.2 suit properties and also to declare that, the noting of forcible possession in favour of the defendant No.2 in the remarks column of the suit plots as erroneous and also for confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and to injunct the defendants permanently from creating any sort of disturbances in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.
Page 5 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
5. Having being noticed from the Trial Court in the suit, vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I, the defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 were set ex parte. The suit was abated against defendant No.1.
The defendant No.2 contested the suit of the plaintiffs vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I by filing his written statement taking his stands therein that, his maternal grandfather had paid the entire consideration money, when the suit properties were purchased in his name during his minority in the year 1962 through the sale deed dated 26.06.1962. His father (defendant No.1) was an alcoholic and good for nothing. His father (defendant No.1) did not have any money to purchase the suit properties through registered sale deed dated 26.06.1962. For which, the defendant No.1 had no right of alienation of any of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs. His further case was that, the defendant No.1 was possessing the suit properties on his behalf during his minority. After attaining his majority, he (defendant No.2) himself has been possessing the suit properties peacefully. The plaintiffs might have obtained the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties fraudulently by taking the advantage of the simplicity and drunken attitude of his father i.e. defendant No.1. Because, defendant No.1 was working as a labourer of the plaintiffs. The so called sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs have not at all been acted upon. They (plaintiffs) have managed to record the suit properties in their names in the Hal Page 6 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 settlement erroneously by influencing the Settlement Authorities. The further case of the defendant No.2 was that, the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for misjoinder of parties. The defendant No.1 has expired during the pendency of the suit leaving his other legal heirs including him (defendant No.2). As, the plaint has not been amended by the plaintiffs, for impletion of other legal heirs of the defendant No.1, then the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 9 (Nine) numbers of issues were framed in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and the said issues are:-
ISSUES
1. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit?
2. Is the suit maintainable in the present form?
3. Is the suit barred by Law of limitation?
4. Is the suit bad for joinder of multiferious causes of actions?
5. Is the suit bad under Law of Estoppel?
6. Is the suit bad under court fees Act?
7. What relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to?
8. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
9. If the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 valid and acted upon?
7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs and against the defendants in their suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980- Page 7 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 I, they (plaintiffs) examined three numbers of witnesses from their side including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 and 8 on their behalf.
But, on the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the contesting defendant No.2 examined four witnesses on his behalf including him (defendant No.2) as D.W.1 and relied upon a document vide Ext.A.
8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the Record, the Trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants including the defendant No.2 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in the issues, the Trial Court passed the judgment and decree of the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I of the plaintiffs on dated 01.11.1983 and 11.11.1983 respectively and decreed that suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I of the plaintiffs on contest against the defendant No.2 with costs and ex parte against the defendant Nos.3 to 5, as the suit was abated against defendant No.1 and declared the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and also confirmed their possession thereon and injuncted the defendant No.2 not to disturb in the possession of the plaintiffs in any manner over the suit properties assigning the reasons that, the sale deeds dated 26.06.1962 and 17.06.1971 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties Page 8 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 executed by the minor defendant No.2 being represented through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 are valid and on the basis of the said sale deeds, the title and possession of the suit properties have already been transferred from the defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiffs, in which, the defendant No.2 has no right, title, interest and possession. For which, the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration of their title over the suit properties and as well as the confirmation of their possession on the same and so also, they (plaintiffs) are also entitled for the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.2.
9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 01.11.1983 and 11.11.1983 respectively passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.5 of 1980-I in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants including defendant No.2, he (defendant No.2) challenged the same by preferring the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I being the appellant against the plaintiffs by arraying the plaintiffs as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also arraying the defendant Nos.3 to 5 as respondent Nos.4 to 6.
10. After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court allowed the First Appeal of the defendant No.2 vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I as per its judgment and decree dated 13.08.1987 and 20.08.1987 respectively and set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.11.1983 and 11.11.1983 respectively passed in O.S. No.5 of 1980-I by the Trial Court Page 9 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants including defendant No.2 assigning the reasons that, the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1, (father of the defendant No.2), when the defendant No.2 was minor in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties are illegal, invalid and ab initio void. For which, the First Appellate Court allowed the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I of the defendant No.2 and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S. No.5 of 1980-I by dismissing that suit of the plaintiffs vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I on contest against the defendant No.2.
11. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.08.1987 and 20.08.1987 respectively passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.5 of 1980-I, the plaintiffs challenged the same by preferring this Second Appeal being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents.
When, during the pendency of this Second Appeal, appellants expired, then in their places, their LRs have been substituted.
12. This Second Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:-
Whether the transfer by the father is legal in the facts and circumstances of the case?
13. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. Page 10 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
14. It appears from the sale deed dated 16.02.1962 vide Ext.A that, Lot No.1 suit properties were purchased in the name of the defendant No.2 (Babu Behera) through the guardianship of his father i.e. defendant No.1, while the defendant No.2 (Babu Behera) was minor and was aged about 4 years.
The said suit properties were sold to the plaintiffs through sale deeds dated 26.06.1962 and 17.06.1971 vide Exts.6 & 8 respectively.
The said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 in respect of the suit properties have been executed by the minor defendant No.2 on dated 26.06.1962 and 17.06.1971 through his father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs.
15. The First Appellate Court in its judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I has specifically held that, when the suit properties were the properties of minor (defendant No.2), on the basis of the purchase through sale deed vide Ext.A in the year 1962 and when the suit properties have been sold away by the father of the minor defendant No.2 through the guardianship of his father (defendant No.1) without obtaining any permission as contemplated under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 from the Competent Court of law, then the said sale deeds vide Ext.6 & 8 in favour of the plaintiffs are illegal and invalid and void ab initio. For which, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Page 11 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 favour of the plaintiffs holding/observing that, the sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 in respect of the suit properties executed by the minor defendant No.2 through his father guardian (defendant No.1) without the permission of competent Court of law as per Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are void ab initio.
16. Now, the question arises, on the basis of the aforesaid substantial question of law formulated in this Second Appeal, whether the above sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 executed by the minor defendant No.2 through his father guardian (defendant No.1) are void ab initio due to lack of permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 from the competent Court of law for selling the suit properties to the plaintiffs.
The provisions of law envisaged under Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 clearly clarify that, any disposal of immovable property by natural guardian in contravention of sub-Section 2 of Section 8 of that Act, 1956 is <VOIDABLE" at the instance of minor or by any person claiming under him.
So, in view of the provisions of law envisaged in Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 (those have been executed by the minor defendant No.2 through the guardianship of his father i.e. defendant No.1) in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties without permission of the Page 12 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 Competent Authority for alienation of the suit properties as per Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are voidable documents, but not void documents.
The law on this aspect concerning the void or voidableness of these nature of sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court:-
(i) 2010 (I) OLR 775 and 109 (2010) CLT 869--Sarat Chandra Panda and others Vrs. Narsingh @ Nrusingh Charan Paramguru4(Para 4)4void and voidable documents4A void document is non-est in the eyes of law and in case of voidable document, it remains good unless it is set aside by a competent Court.
(ii) AIR 1968 (S.C.) 261--Kalawati Vrs. Bisheswar4(Para
9)4Void i.e. non-existent from its very inception and a ban against its recognition.
(iii) 2019 (4) Civil Court Cases 277 (Kerala)--Thankamoni Amma Vrs. Ganapathi Suresh4(Para 5)4Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 84Sale of minor's property by father in contravention of Section 8 (1) and Section 8 (2) of the Act4Sale deed in question is only voidable at the instance of minor and not void at its very inception.
(iv) 2019 (3) CCC 99 (Gujarat)--Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai and others Vrs. Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Dead through his Heirs and Ors.4(Para 162)4Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 8 read with Indian Limitation Act, 19634Article 604Disposal of property belonging to minor4Even in a situation where Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is applicable, disposal of property of minor by guardian without prior permission of District Court is voidable as opposed to void at instance of concerned minor and upon attaining majority4Such option is required to be exercised by minor by filing appropriate Civil suit for setting aside such transfer within a period of 3 years from the date of attaining majority by minor.Page 13 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
(v) 2020 (I) CLR (SC) 497--M. Arumugam Vrs.
Ammaniammal and Ors.4Document executed by mother, the natural guardian, cannot be said to be a void document4It was a voidable document in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and should have been challenged within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority.
(vi) 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 571 (Chhattisgarh)--Rohit Kumar Vs. Krishna Bai4Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 84Sale of minor's property by father in contravention of Section 8 (2) of the Act4suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction filed by minor after attaining majority without seeking relief of cancellation of sale deed in question not maintainable4suit rightly dismissed.
(vii) 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 687 (Kerala)4Ramadas Menon Vs. Sreedevi4Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 8 (3)4 Alienation of minor's property by natural guardian without obtaining permission of Court4 Alienation has to be challenged and without setting aside alienation, no relief can be obtained4There should be a prayer to set aside the alienation effected by natural guardian without Court's sanction4Plaintiff cannot merely ignore the sale deed.
(viii) 2023 (I) OLR 21 & 2023 (1) CLR 74-- Raja Prasad Bastia & Anr. Vrs. Commissioner of Consolidation & Ors.4 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Sections 8(1) and 8(3)4Sale deed involving minor's property without permission is voidable.
(ix) 2019 (2) Civil Court Cases 181 (S.C.) & 2019 (1) CCC 256 (S.C.)4 Murugan & Ors. Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors.4Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 8 (3)4Transfer of property by natural guardian of minor by a registered sale deed in contravention of Section 8 of the Act4 Alienation made on behalf of minor can be avoided by minor or any person claiming under him4In event, minor dies before attaining majority, obviously, his LRs will have right to avoid alienation. (Para 21).
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 19564Section 8 (3) read with Indian Limitation Act, 19634Article 604Minors Property4Sale in contravention of Section 8(3) of the Act, 19564Alienation made on behalf of minor can be avoided by minor or any person claiming under him by filing a suit4Suit to be filed within 3 years of attaining majority of minor or within three years of death, if minor dies before attaining majority4 Suit is barred by limitation when suit is not filed within three years of death of minor. (Paras 9 & 11).
Page 14 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
17. In view of the propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions in analyzing the provisions of Section 8(1), Section 8(2), Section 8(3) and Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and as well as Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the aforesaid sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 executed in respect of the properties of the minor i.e. in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs stating the minor defendant No.2 as a vendor represented through his natural father guardian i.e. defendant No.1 are not void sale deeds, but the said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 are in the nature of voidable documents.
Therefore, the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in the judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I that, sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 are ab initio void cannot be sustainable under law. Because, the said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 are voidable deeds.
The legal effects of the voidable deeds as per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court are that, the voidable sale deeds like Exts.6 & 8 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties are valid against whole world, till the same are set aside by the competent Court of law by filing the appropriate suit by the minor seller (vendor) thereof within 3 years of attaining his majority. Page 15 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
As per the evidence of defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I as D.W.1, he was aged about 24 years on dated 20.01.1983. So, on the basis of his age as on 20.01.1983, as per his own saying, the present age of the defendant No.2 is 65 years. But till yet, he (defendant No.2) has not exercised his option by filing appropriate civil suit for setting aside the sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8. That too, he (defendant No.2) has also not filed any counter claim in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8. Because, in order to avoid the said voidable nature sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8, as per law, it was required under law for the defendant No.2 to exercise his option by filing the appropriate civil suit for setting aside the said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 within a period of 3 years from the date of attaining his majority. But, though, he (defendant No.2) has attained his majority 47 years before, but till yet, he has not filed any civil suit before any competent Court of law for cancellation of said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8.
When, till yet, the said sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties have not been cancelled/set aside (those are voidable nature as per law), for which, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court, the aforesaid formulated substantial question of law in this Second Appeal is answered that, the sale deeds Page 16 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987 vide Exts.6 & 8 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs are valid as per law till yet and the said sale deeds are binding upon the parties including the defendant No.2, because the said instruments (sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8) have not been avoided through any competent Court of law.
As per the discussions and observations made above, when the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in reversing the final findings of the Trial Court are not acceptable under law and when it has been held that, the sale deeds vide Exts.6 & 8 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs are valid and the same are binding upon the parties including the defendant No.2, then at this juncture, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court cannot be sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I through this Second Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs).
As such, there is merit in the Second Appeal of the appellants (plaintiffs). The same must succeed.
18. In the result, the Second Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is allowed on contest, but without cost.
Page 17 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987
The judgment and decree dated 13.08.1987 and 20.08.1987 respectively passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A. No.70 of 1983-I are set aside.
The judgment and decree dated 01.11.1983 and 11.11.1983 respectively passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.5 of 1980-I in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.2 are confirmed.
(A.C. Behera), Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
22nd March, 2024//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Mar-2024 15:13:40 Page 18 of 18 S.A. No.247 of 1987