Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Lakshman Naik – Appellant
Versus
Purni Naikani – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of appeals (Para 2 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. family partition history (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. trial court findings in favor of plaintiffs (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. limitations of 2nd appeal jurisdiction (Para 15 , 19) |
| 5. dismissal of 2nd appeal (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.
2. The appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and he was the appellant No.2 before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.
The respondent Nos.1 to 9 of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs as well as the successors of some of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and they were the respondents Nos.1 to 5(f) before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.
The respondent Nos.10 to 13 are the substituted LRs of the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3 of 1992 and they were the respondent Nos. 6(a) to 6(d) before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.17 of 2000.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the respondent Nos.1 to 9 in this
The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless shown to be perverse, thus upholding the judgment confirming possession of the ....
Prior partition remains valid unless cogent evidence of reunion is established; absent such evidence, the ownership claims of plaintiffs over disputed properties are affirmed.
The finalized Record of Rights (RoR) by consolidation authorities is binding, and civil courts cannot alter these determinations once established, reinforcing the plaintiff's title and possession.
The court established that a new title created by the settlement of properties under the O.E.A. Act, 1951 operates to the exclusion of all prior claims, and a stranger purchaser from lawful owners ca....
A suit for declaration of title requires the plaintiff to be in possession of the property; otherwise, as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable.
Genealogical claims in property disputes must be evidenced to be valid; mere assertion is insufficient, and suits for declaration require concurrent possession claims if plaintiffs lack possession.
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title if the plaintiff's title is not in dispute, and abatement of a suit under the OCH and PFL Act, 1972, requires a formal o....
Widow's remarriage does not strip her of inheritance rights, and married daughters have equal entitlement to family property under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
A party may not amend a suit's claims regarding ownership of property in a manner contradicting original pleadings without introducing adequate supporting evidence, undermining the integrity of legal....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
