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

1966 Supreme(Ori) 39

G.K.MISRA
Narasingha Rou – Appellant
Versus
Sricharan Panda – Respondent


Advocates:
Y.S.N. Murty and L.K. Dasgupta, for Appellant; R.N. Misra, R.C. Patnaik and B. Harichandan, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT :- Plaintiff's suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Title is based on a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) dated 11-4-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 1400 executed by defendant-2 on behalf of himself and his sons and defendant-1, the mother-in-law of defendant-2. Plaintiff's case is that from the date of purchase he was in possession. In 1957 defendant-3 started a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P. C. which ended in his favour.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff. Defendant-3 claimed the disputed land as his ancestral property and asserted that he and his ancestors are in possession for the last 20 years or so and that defendants 1 and 2 had no title or possession. It was further averred that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years of the suit and in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. between him and defendants 1 and 2, the land was delivered to him in 1952, and that no suit having been filed within three years of the final order, this suit is barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.

3. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif on the finding that defendants 1 and 2 had a valid title which was conveyed to the p

























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