Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 41

A. C. BEHERA
Tamalo Das @ Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Sefali Pradhan (Since Dead). . Respondents Through Her Lrs – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. S. S. Rao, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. E. Haque, Advocate. for Appellants; Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate., for Respondents

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper consideration of possession versus title in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession when neither party has valid title?

What is the maintainability and scope of a suit for recovery of possession where government land (Gramakantha Poramboka) is involved and there is no patta proving raiyati status?

What are the substantive legal grounds on which a prior possessor can be restored to possession despite disputed or absent title?

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The respondent of this Second Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 and she was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.37 of 1999.

The appellants of this Second Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 and they were the respondents before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.37 of 1999.

3. The suit of the plaintiff before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff (who is the respondent in this Second Appeal) before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 was that, she (plaintiff) purchased total 23 x 74 cubits land from her two vendors i.e. Juddhistira Sahu and Dibakar Subudhi on dated 21.12.1972 through two registered sale deeds. As the plaintiff was staying with her husband in the service place of her husband, for which, she (plaintiff) engaged her uncle, namely, Bidhan Nayak to look after her purchased properties including the suit site, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

No cases in the provided list were explicitly identified by the text as "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." While several entries mention parties being "Dead" and represented by "LRs" (Legal Representatives), this indicates a procedural update regarding the parties to the litigation rather than a judicial invalidation of the legal precedent itself.

**Category: Procedural and Substantive Precedents (Followed/Applied)**

The following cases function as active legal precedents or case summaries used in the provided text to support current legal arguments regarding title, possession, suit maintainability, and appellate findings:

* **Gouri Shankar Behera (dead) Through his LRs. vs State of Orissa - 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 299:** Establishes a rule regarding Section 80 CPC notice and non-joinder of parties.

* **RUSI KUMAR SAHU VS SRI RASA ALIAS RAHAS BEHARI THAKURA - 1987 0 Supreme(Ori) 334:** Clarifies the maintainability of civil suits regarding the status of under-raiyats under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

* **SUNDAR ORAM VS BUDHUA ORAM - 1986 0 Supreme(Ori) 273:** Defines the authority of an Assistant Settlement Officer regarding land settlement.

* **Dr. Adolfo Braulio Cesario Rodrigues Fernandes VS Narayan Sidapa Kadam - 1977 0 Supreme(Goa) 10:** Confirms the Court's authority under Section 152 CPC to correct accidental errors.

**Category: Case Summaries/Citations used in Litigation (Contextual)**

These cases are being cited as reference points for ongoing disputes involving property, title, or succession:

* **K. Vedavathi VS V. Chenchamma - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1599, Jogendra Patel vs Fanibhusan Patel - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 406, Charles(died) VS Leela - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1460, Bhawanipatna Municipality vs Jayanta Kumar Pati - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 4870, Lok Nath Jaiswal S/o Late Lal Bihari Lal Vs Kedar Nath Jaiswal S/o Late Lal Bihari Lal - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1044, Gummadi Veeraiah vs Talapati Chennaiah - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 238, Rama Chandra Jena (since dead through his LRs) vs Ballabhananda Sahoo - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 251, Biswajit Dutta, S/o Sri Bidhu Dutta vs On The Death of Sri Lengru Rajgorh His Legal Heir Sri Raj Rajgorh(Son) - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 625, Radhakrishna Mohaprabhu Bije, Dungripali vs State of Orissa - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 1153, Sankara Subramanian vs Selvaraj (Died) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 52691, Baidhai Sethi @ Baidei Sethi vs Sibaram Sethi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 162, Bhaktaram Barik (dead) VS Uttam Panchali (dead) - Current Civil Cases (2025), Bhaktaram Barik (dead) vs Uttam Panchali (dead) - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 962, Krushna Chandra Patro vs Varanasi Ananta Rao (dead) - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 963, 02100157758(Mad) 64734](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02100157758)), Nagar Panchayat, Rajim, Through Chief Municipal Officer vs Tarabai, W/o. Shri Shantilal Parekh - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 289, K. Ganga Goud vs K. Vittal - 2026 0 Supreme(Telangana) 129, Yasoda vs Joseph Cyril - 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 342, Dibyadham Jogashram, through its Secretary Rabinarayan Mishra (dead) vs Mahant Rajagopal Ramanuj Das - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 1656, Dibyadham Jogashram, Chakratirtha Road, Puri, through its Secretary Rabinarayan Mishra (dead) vs Mahant Rajagopal Ramanuj Das - 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 287:** These entries predominantly consist of case history details (e.g., succession by LRs, registered sale deed references, and specific suit numbers). They are cited as active, relevant references in the files provided rather than being criticized or overturned.

None. The provided text extracts are primarily procedural descriptions or summaries of pending litigation rather than appellate commentary on the validity of prior rulings. No language exists in the provided dataset that suggests any of the cited authorities have been questioned or treated as bad law by the courts involved in these records.