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

1982 Supreme(Ori) 95

R.C.PATNAIK
BAIRAGI CH. DAS – Appellant
Versus
KARTIK CHANDRA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.N.MISHRA, PRASANTA MOHANTY, R.K.MOHAPATRA, R.N.ACHARYA, S.C.BASA, S.MOHANTY

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Bhadrak, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the application are: Opposite Party No. 1 filed a suit for partition on the basis of his purchase under sale deed dated 16-1-70 from defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 4 mainly contested the suit claiming to have purchased the entire two decimals under sale deed dated 15-4-68, According to the said defendant, Gura (defendant No. 2) was not the daughter of Hadi Das and Jema as alleged by the plaintiff and sister of Makari, his vendor, His specific case was that Gura was the daughter of one Rama Das and had no connection with the family of Hadi Das. So, the purchase of the plaintiff was from an imposter. It was further alleged that in a previous suit filed by one Minki which was being contested by Gura, an issue was raised as to whether Gura wag the daughter of Hadi Das or Earn Das and it was decided by this Court that Gura was not the daughter of Hadi Das. He averred that the said finding in the earlier suit operated as
























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