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

1985 Supreme(Ori) 402

K.P.MOHAPATRA, J.K.MOHANTY
HARA PRASAD DAS – Appellant
Versus
RAMBALLAV DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.K. Misra and M.J. Rao, for the Appellant; R.N. Mohanty, N.N. Nanda and A. Routray, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexure 3 and 5 and restoration of Annexure 2 which are the orders passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 36 of 1976, the revisional authority in Consolidation Revision No. 49 of 1977 and the, consolidation office in Objection Case Nos. 371 and 524 of 1972 respectively.

2. Balabhadra had three sons, named, Padmacharan, Radhacharan and Madhab. Madhab was adopted to Gadadhar a stranger to the family. Madhab had no son and, therefore, he adopted Jagmohan, a son of Radhacharan. Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Jagmohan (petitioner No. 7). Petitioner No. 8 is the wife of petitioner No. 7 Opposite parties 1 and 3 are the son's sons of Radhacharan. Opposite parties Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) were substituted in place of original opposite party No. 2, deity Chaitanya Deb represented by Marfatdar Janakiballav Das, son's son of Radhacharan. In O. S. No. 3 of 19.4 for partition in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri most of the parties in the writ petition were parties, petitioners 1, 2 and 3 being the plaintiffs. The suit was decr










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