SMT. REBATI PATRA Vs. BHIKARI CHARAN PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted two appeals are directed against the common judgment followed by decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No. 7/14 of 1998/89 and Title Appeal No. 3/11/20/17 of 98/97/94/89. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1989 and 14.03.1989 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 209 of 1986-I decreeing their suit in part by recording a finding that the plaintiff No. 2 is not the son of late Rama Chandra Patra had filed Title Appeal No. 7/14 of 1998/89 in the lower appellate court. Defendants being aggrieved by the same judgment and decree passed in the said suit granting the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff No. 1 and restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit land had filed Title Appeal No. 3/11/20/17 of 98/97/94/89. Thus, the former appeal before the lower appellate court was at the instance of the plaintiffs essentially being aggrieved by the finding against the son ship of plaintiff No. 2 that he is not the son of Rama Chandra Patra and the latter one was at the behest of the defendants calling in question the grant of relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff No. 1 declaring her status as wife of Rama Chandra Patra and restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession so far as the suit land is concerned.

(2.) The lower appellate court by the common judgment allowed the appeal filed by the defendants rendering a finding that the plaintiff No. 1 is not the wife of Rama Chandra holding contrary to that of the trial court and thereby has held her to be dis-entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as granted by the trial court. By the said judgment, the lower appellate court also dismissed the appeal carried by the plaintiffs challenging the finding of the trial court as regards the status of plaintiff No. 2 as the son of Rama Chandra Patra by affirming the finding of the trial court in that regard against the plaintiff No. 2. Therefore, the unsuccessful plaintiffs as the appellants have filed these two appeals before this Court challenging by one ; the concurrent finding of the courts below that plaintiff No. 2 is not the son of Rama Chandra Patra and the other challenging the reversing finding of the lower appellate court against the status of plaintiff No. 1 as the wife of Rama Chandra Patra and holding her to be dis-entitled to the relief claimed in the suit.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, in order to in bring clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the courts below.