SUKANTA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal was once allowed by this Court by judgment dated 22.12.1995 setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and decreeing the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs by granting reliefs of declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction. The respondents-State challenged the said judgment in Civil Appeal No. 687 of 1997 before the Hon'ble apex Court. The Hon'ble apex Court by its order dated 8.11.2000 held that on perusal of the judgment of this Court it leaves much to be desired and the High Court being the final Court of appeal on facts, ought to have discussed the relevant evidence adduced by the parties and recorded its conclusion based on it. It should have also indicated error committed by the trial Court and given reason as to why the High Court had not been able to agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court and took a different view on the facts. Finding that these aspects are lacking in the judgment under appeal, the Hon'ble apex Court felt it appropriate to set aside the judgment under challenge and remit the case to this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thus, this First Appeal has again been taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Late Purna Sahu, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Nos.1 to 3 along with the other appellants filed T.S. No. 40 of 1983 before the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar praying for the following reliefs :

(3.) The suit property as described in-the schedule of the plait constituted an area Ac. 4.65 decimals appertaining to hal plot No. 306 under Rakshit Khata No. 491 under Police Station - Saheednagar, erstwhile district of Puri, bounded by North-land of Radha Kar, plot No. 302, South-Anabadi, East-land of Daitari Jena and Madan Bhoi and West-land of Bansidhar Patra, corresponding to part of sabik plot No. 341, under Anabadi khata No. 270 measuring Ac.225.00 under sabik Police Station - Sadar Cuttack, sabik district-Cuttack. It appears from the record that during pendency of the suit, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos.1 to 3 having expired, they were substituted as plaintiffs 1(a) to (c) before the trial Court.