SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 966

D.P.MOHAPATRA, S.B.MAJMUDAR
NEHALIPANJIYARA – Appellant
Versus
SHYAMA DEVI – Respondent


( 1 ) WE have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers.

( 2 ) THE review petition raises entirely a new point about the extinction of the legal heirs in the line of descendants of the estate represented by gurudayal Panjiara and Kunjlal Panjiara prior to the institution of the suit and that the said estate stood inherited in amongst the descendants of only matuki Panjiara and Ashrafi Panjiara. Such a contention was never canvassed before any of the courts below. Not only that, there was no issue sought for on this point even before the trial court. In second appeal the only dispute raised was regarding suit properties Items 2 to 8. The High Court confirmed the decision about their partibility in the light of the findings reached by the lower appellate court which has noted in para 49 of its judgment that defendant 2nd party admitted plaintiffs claim for Items 2 to 8 of the schedule.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY, no case is made out for our interference in the review proceedings on the aforesaid new contention.

( 4 ) THE review petition is, therefore, dismissed on merits.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top