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

1964 Supreme(Ori) 50

S.BARMAN
RASI DEI – Appellant
Versus
BIKAL MAHARANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.N.DAS, P.ROY, R.N.MISRA, S.K.DEY

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 in a partition suit is the appellant from an order of the learned subordinate Judge Cuttack, whereby he appointed an outsider as receiver in respect of the suit agricultural lands.

( 2 ) IN May, 1963, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for partition of their respective shares. The total area of the suit lands is said to be 5. 656 acres. The defendants are said to be members of a joint Hindu family. The 11 plaintiffs are each purchaser for a specific portion of property from different members of the defdts' family. The total acquisition of the plaintiffs by purchase is said to be 3 acres. On the plaintiffs' application for receiver the learned Subordinate Judge appointed one Sri Dibakar Jena of Souri Gram Punchayet as receiver. Hence this misc. appeal filed by defdt No. 3.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge did not give any reasons for his appointing the receiver. His order, which is cryptic, is this: "26. 4-1-64. Parties file haziras. Heard lawyers at length on the Receiver matter. Let Sri Dibakar Jena of Souri Gram Puchayet be appointed as a receiver in respect of the agricultural lands till the disposal of the suit. Let a copy of or





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