Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Bhagabati Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Sarangadhar Pradhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs’ appeal against earlier judgments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background and claims of the parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues framed for determination. (Para 5) |
| 4. trial court's findings on possession and validity of title. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. substantial questions of law for appeal. (Para 8) |
| 6. counsel arguments regarding partition and adverse possession. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 7. defendant's possession based on adverse claim. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. court's agreement with lower court findings. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 9. final judgment confirmation and dismissal of appeal. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. The judgment dated 15.07.2006 followed by decree passed by learned District Judge, Phulbani in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2001 is impugned, whereby the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baliguda in Title Suit No.6 of 1993 followed by decree was confirmed.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, briefly stated, is that the suit land under Schedule A of the plaint originally belonged to one Benu Nayak, the common ancestor. He had two sons, Daitari and Surendra. After their death, the plaintiffs possessed the suit land jointly
Title to immovable property cannot transfer through an invalid sale deed; possession based on such deed can lead to adverse possession under appropriate circumstances.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
(1) Pleadings – Evidence can be permitted to be given only on a plea properly raised and not in contradiction of plea.(2) Adverse Possession – Once plaintiff proves his title over suit property it i....
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
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.
Possession established under Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, with admissibility of partition deeds for evidential purposes despite non-signatory status.
The court upheld that an unregistered partition deed can provide context in disputes regarding possession, especially when substantiated by oral evidence of long-term use under Section 9 of the U.P. ....
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
