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

2003 Supreme(Ori) 178

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI
MATHURI BEWA – Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA ROUTRAY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.DAS, B.H.MOHANTY, BIJAN RAY, J.K.BASTIA, R.K.Nayak, R.N.Pandey, S.C.MOHANTY, Sangram Das, SANJIB DAS

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THE legal heirs of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in O. S. No. 95/24 of 1981/79-I of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar are the appellants against a reversing judgment passed by the lower appellate Court.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 is the daughter of Radhu Parida, the original plaintiff. The respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 4 to 5 in the trial Court. Similarly respondent No. 5 is defendant No. 6. The original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the defendant-appellants have no right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction. It has been stated, inter alia, by the original plaintiff Radhu Parida that the 'a' Schedule property of the plaint was the ancestral property which stood recorded during the last settlement of 1962 in the names of Banamali Parida, Kelu Parida, Parasuram Parida, Sons of Uchhab Parida and Binod Parida, (father of the plaintiff) jointly. The father of the plaintiff had 8 annas interest whereas the other branch had the balance 8 annas share. Parasuram, one of the co-sharers having been dead, his interest had devolved upon Kelu and Banamali. The suit properties have been treated as t









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