Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Rama Chandra Jena (since dead through his LRs) – Appellant
Versus
Ballabhananda Sahoo – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the second appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions raised by both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. first appellate court's findings. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of customary rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This second appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellant in this second appeal was the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and respondent No.3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
The respondent Nos.1 to 10 in this second appeal being the villagers of village Pandua under Tirtol police station in the district of Cuttack at present in the district of Jagatsinghpur were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and appellants before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
Respondent Nos.11 and 12 in this second appeal i.e. Collector and Tahasildar were the defendant Nos.1 & 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2
Plaintiffs established customary rights over communal land against the state, as ownership recognized; claims against a non-owner are legally invalid.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving religious properties when necessary parties, specifically deities, are absent; such matters should be resolved under the relevant endowment act.
Customary rights for community over land exist in gross, distinct from easements appurtenant to dominant tenement; prima facie proof of ancient, continuous, certain, reasonable usage via non-traverse....
A suit for declaration of title is maintainable even if there are erroneous entries in settlement records, as such entries do not create or extinguish title. The civil court has the authority to dete....
The court held that lands classified as Khudkast vest with the State following the abolition of the Thikadari system, negating prior claims made by the plaintiff.
Ownership claims require substantial evidence to be upheld; courts usually defer to prior findings unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.
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
