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

1989 Supreme(Ori) 93

G.B.PATTANAIK
CHANDRA SEKHAR DAS – Appellant
Versus
GIRIDHARI SAHU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.MISHRA, C.R.NANDA, P.K.MISHRA, R.C.Ram, S.K.GHOSH

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.


( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Athgarh, in a suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title and for confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF's case, in brief, is that the properties described under Lot. No. 1 of Schedule A of the plaint are Brahmottar Niskar land and under Lot No. 2 of the said Schedule are Pahi land. The entire land originally belonged to one Nilakantha and after his death the property devolved upon his three sons, Hari, Baraju and Madhu. Madhu had been given away in adoption and accordingly had no interest in the property of Nilakantha. Both Hari and Baraju had no issue. Hari had adopted one son called Natabar and Baraju had adopted one son called Lokanath. Natabar died issueless in 1941 leaving beind his widow Mahani and three daughters, Maguni, Ratnamuni and Swaranapata. Ratnamani is plaintiff No. 2 and her husband Chandra Sekhar is plaintiff No. 1. Lot No. 1 of Schedule A was mutuated in the names of Lokanath and











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