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

2018 Supreme(Ori) 809

A.K.RATH
PRAHARAJ PALATASINGH – Appellant
Versus
ARJUNA FATESINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Debasis Chhotray, Sambit Rath, Advocates for the appearing parties.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Rath, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the affirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Jagannath Rath. The plaintiff and defendant no.3 purchased the same from Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed. They are in possession of the suit land. They used to grow paddy and seasonal vegetables over the same. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. They created disturbance in their possession.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, plaintiff and defendant no.3 had purchased sabik plot no.573 which corresponds to hal plot no.507. Sabik plot no.563 had been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed. Possession of the suit land had not been delivered to them. It was further pleaded that one Dambarudhar Samantaray was the original owner of sabik plot nos.573 and 563. He sold sabik plot no.573 to one Jagannath Rath by means of a registered sale deed dated 8.9.1953, Ext.4. Instead of plot no.573, plot no.563 had been mentioned in the sale deed. Thereafter, Jagannath Rath sold the















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