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

2019 Supreme(Ori) 116

A.K.RATH
Mumtaz Begum – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kumar Sahoo – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.R. Barik, Adv., R.K. Mohanty, Adv., S.K. Pattnaik, Adv., Damodar Deo, Adv., G.C. Ray, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S.No.300 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, learned trial court has allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 instituted the suit to set aside the registered sale deed dated 13.2.2009 executed by defendant nos. 1 to 7 in favour of defendant no.8, eviction and perpetual injunction stating that he had purchased Ac.0.240 dec. of land appertaining to hal plot no.21, khata no.198, Unit No.29, Chauliaganj of mouza-Cuttack Town from defendant no.9 by means of a registered sale deed no.2349 dated 8.5.2009. He is in possession of the same. When defendant no.8 forcibly constructed over a portion of the suit land, he instituted the suit.

3. Defendant no.8 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, prior to execution of the sale deed by defendant no.9, he had purchased Ac.0.105 dec. of land form defendant nos.1 to 7 by means of a registered sale deed dated 13.2.2009. He is in possession of the same. Defendant nos. 1, 4 a

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