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

2017 Supreme(Ori) 295

A.K.RATH
Nilabati Gouda – Appellant
Versus
Durga Prasad Mohapatra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Niranjan Sahoo, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that Faguna Gouda was the owner of the suit schedule property. He had one son, namely, Basu Gouda, who predeceased him. The plaintiff is the daughter of Basu Gouda. Basu Gouda died in the year 1970 and his wife predeceased him. Faguna Gouda died in the year 1975. The plaintiff was brought up by her maternal grandmother. In the hal settlement operation, a portion of the suit land was recorded in the name of Faguna Gouda and another portion was recorded in the name of the defendant. Thereafter she came to know that one Ashumati Gouda claiming to be the daughter of Faguna Gouda alienated the entire suit land by means of two registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant. Ashumati was not the daughter of Faguna. Thus the sale deeds were never binding upon her. She issued a legal notice to the defendant not to disturb her possession. The defendant gave reply that Ashumati being the Karta of the family had alienated the property for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate. Plaintiff got the portion of the suit land mutated in her name in Misc. Case No.231 of 199























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