Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Badani Kumari Patra (dead) – Appellant
Versus
Purna Chandra Jena (dead) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the legal dispute and claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reflections on the submissions of both parties. (Para 7 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. legal principles regarding sale deeds and validity. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. assessment of property rights and dispossession. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. conclusion on the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
The Respondent Nos.4 to 12 are the successors of the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Respondent Nos.4 to 5(h) before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this 2nd Appeal were the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
The suit properties are Ac.0.061 Dec. of Sabik Plot No.270 under Sabik Khata No.113 in Mouza Kalaraput under Sahid Nagar Police Station, which corresponds to Hal Plot No.675 under Hal Khata No.212 described in Schedule A of the Plaint.
At the time of exe
Non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale deed, and a third party cannot contest its validity; possession by trespassers benefits the true owner.
A claim of title through adverse possession is inadmissible when a claimant asserts title through inheritance over the same property, as these claims are mutually exclusive.
Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim title through inheritance while asserting ownership via adverse possession; such claims are mutually exclusive.
Sales executed by a natural guardian without court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act are voidable, remaining valid until the minor challenges them within three years of attaini....
A suit for declaration of title over undivided property without partition is not maintainable, reaffirming the necessity of establishing specific ownership for claims over joint property.
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
A non-party to a sale deed lacks the standing to challenge it based on non-passing of consideration or legal necessity, as established by precedents.
A co-owner can validly sell their share in joint properties, and the sale deed cannot be declared void if it is within the extent of the seller's interest.
Claiming adverse possession implies acknowledgment of the other party's title, and appellate courts must consider all evidence rather than rely solely on select reports.
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
