SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ
Pitabash Behera – Appellant
Versus
Panchu Dehury – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mahitosh Sinha, P. Sinha, P.R. Sinha, P.K. Mahali

Table of Content
1. technicalities should not hinder substantial justice. (Para 1)
2. factual background of ownership and possession crucial to the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. argument regarding registration exemption of court decrees. (Para 6 , 7)
4. analysis of section 17 of the registration act, 1908. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. implications of compromise decrees on registration requirements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. title cannot pass without a valid registered document. (Para 15 , 16)
7. reaffirmation of the decision against the plaintiff/petitioner. (Para 17)
8. dismissal of the civil miscellaneous petition. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

1. The technicalities should not act in deterrence to the rendering substantial justice by putting quietus to the litigation in bringing the cause to its final destination. The present case is one of the examples of exploring the avenue provided under the Constitution of India in challenging a portion of a compromised decree despite the alternative remedy by way of an appeal provided in the statute.

2. Initially, the writ petition was filed assailing a portion of a compromise decree whereby and whereunder the court below directed the compromise decree to be registered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top