Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Sushila Dash – Appellant
Versus
Debendra Kumar Nanda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition of suit properties and background. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court's issues framed for determination. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 3. consideration of substantial questions of law. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. arguments from defendant's counsel on legal issues. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. final analysis and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a confirming judgment. The judgment dated 31.1.2023 followed by decree passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Puri in RFA No.3/59 of 2019-17 is impugned, whereby the said appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment dtd.31.7.2017 followed by decree passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Puri in C.S. No.123/330 of 2015-13 was dismissed.
3. The suit property is described in two schedules of the plaint being Schedule-B and B-1. Schedule-B is as follows:
Schedule-B-1 is as follows:
2. Mouza-Daitapada Sahi, P.S- Puri Town, Dist - Puri, Plot No. 1379 (One thousand three hundred seventy nine), Municipal Jamanbandi No. 52 (Fifty two), Area – Ac. 011 ‰ decs. (Eleven and half dec) & Municipal Jamanbandi No.62 (sixty two) Area –Ac. 002 ‰ decs. (two and half dec.) Total-Ac. 014
The finalized partition under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cannot be reopened unless exceptions apply; claims barred by limitation and lack of necessary parties.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
The court recognizes the entitlement of female heirs to a share in ancestral property based on notional partition, counteracting historical biases that deprived them of their rightful claims.
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
Prior partition remains valid unless cogent evidence of reunion is established; absent such evidence, the ownership claims of plaintiffs over disputed properties are affirmed.
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
