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

1986 Supreme(Ori) 33

G.B.PATTANAIK
UMAKANTA DAS – Appellant
Versus
PRADIP KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.BRAHMACHARI, B.Nayak, G.RATH

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.


( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the appellants against a judgment of reversal.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS who are the two sons of defendant No. 3 being minors filed the suit through their mother guardian. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from entering upon the disputed land, for a mandatory injunction against them to remove the obstructions and for setting aside the registered sale deed dated 9-4-1965 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 which is Ext. 2 in the present case. The disputed land measures an area of Ac. 0. 03 decimals pertaining to plot Nos. 49 and 59 under Khata No. 30 of village Haripur. According to the plaint case, the plaintiffs had lot of ancestral properties and there was lot of surplus income out of the said properties. The disputed land was purchased by defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 29-7-1937 from out of the surplus income of the ancestral property and, therefore, constitutes a part and parcel of the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 had no right to transfer the said property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 without consent of 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