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

1996 Supreme(Cal) 383

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI
Hrishikesh Panda – Appellant
Versus
Ram Narayan Panda – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, for the Appellants
Mr. S. C. Bose, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are in appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in T. A. No. 190/73 dated 29.8.74 and 6.974 respectively affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, in T. S. No. 10/73 dated 12th April, 1973 and 30th April, 1973 dismissing their suits.

2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title over 'ka' schedule lands and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession.

3. The skeletal picture of the case of both parties is as follows :-

That the ancestors of plaintiffs originally were the residents of village Tulsichara in the District of Puri within the province of Orissa. They came to reside in the suit village in or around 200 years ago which was then within Orissa province. But incourse of time, the village was disannexed from the Orissa State; amalgamated with the Bengal province. Notwithstanding such amalgamation of the area with the province of Bengal they followed rites and ceremony under Mitakshara Law. The defendant No.1 was the father of the plaintiff No.1 and proforma defendant No.4. Th































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