Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Gourhari Mohanty (Dead) and Others – Appellants
Versus
Bhargabi Das (Dead) and Others – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 587 of 2003
Decided On : 17-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal standing of appellants and respondents established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiffs’ claim to title and correction of record. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court findings favoring plaintiffs. (Para 8) |
| 4. defendants' counterargument against plaintiffs' claim. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. formulation of substantial questions of law. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. legality of transactions and ownership established. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. final ruling on legality and appeal outcome. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. dismissal of appeal with no merit. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. BEHERA, J.
1. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.399 of 1996-I and respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.67 of 2002.
3. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.399 of 1996-I and appellants before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.67 of 2002.
The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) vide T.S. No.399 of 1996-I was a suit for declaration and correction of record of right (RoR).
As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) that, Haguru Mohanty was their common ancestor. Haguru Mohanty died leaving behind his four sons, i.e., Prasad, Narayan, Baraju @ Brajakishore and Kalandi. Kalandi died unmarried. After the death of Kalandi, his share devolved upon his three brothers.
Baraju @ Brajakishore died leaving behind his son Brundaban.
Brundaban died unmarried, for which, the share of Brundaban devolved upon other two branches, i.e., upon the branch of Prasad and Narayan.
Narayan died leaving behind his son, Pranabandhu. Pranabandhu died leaving behind Hadiani, Jema and Asha.
Prasad died leaving behind his only son Mohan. Mohan died leaving behind his only son Jagannath. Jagannath died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his successors.
The suit properties were under Khata No.541/3 Ac.12.25 decimals in the revisional settlement of the year 1905 and the same was recorded jointly in the names of Jagannath, Pranabandhu, Brajamohan and Kalandi.
The said properties covered under Revisional Settlement Khata No.541/3 was partitioned through a suit vide O.S. No.2/1924 Class-I in the court of Sub-Judge, Cuttack.
In the said partition, Pranabandhu got Ac.7.10 decimals and Jagannath got Ac.5.15 decimals. In spite of such partition, in its next Sabik Settlement of the year 1930, the said properties were recorded jointly in the names of Pranabandhu, Jagannath and Brundaban.
Hadiani got Ac.2.66 decimals of land out of Ac.7.10 decimals land of Pranabandhu from Sabik Plot No.484. Jema and Asha got Ac.3.48 decimals land of Pranabandhu from Sabik Plot No.484.
Out of Ac.3.48 decimals properties of Jema and Asha from Sabik Plot No.484, they(Jema and Asha) 1st sold Ac.3.32 decimals from Sabik Plot No.484 to Padmalochan through registered Sale Deed No.2030 dated 11.04.1928(Ext.D). For which, the rest Ac.0.16 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.484 remained with Jema and Asha. They(Jema and Asha) again sold Ac.1.22 decimals through registered Sale deed No.3318 dated 07.07.1931(Ext.E) in favour of Padmalochan. The 2nd Sale Deed No.3318 dated 07.07.1931(Ext.E) in favour of Padmalochan was for Ac.0.16 decimals from Sabik Plot No.484 and Ac.0.96 decimals from Sabik Plot No.490. The total purchased land of Padmalochan from Jema and Asha through the above two sale deeds was Ac.3.32 decimals + Ac.1.22 decimals = Ac.4.54 decimals in total.
Sabik Plot Nos.484 and 490 were Plot Nos.448 and 460 in the previous revisional settlement.
In the Hal Settlement, the said Sabik Plot Nos.484 and 490 became Hal Plot Nos.832, 833, 836 and 853 and out of which, the Hal Plot number 853 is the suit land in the suit.
In the year 1963, Padmalochan p
A property owner cannot partition their exclusive assets among heirs who lack legal interest; valid sale deeds establish ownership rights.
Prior partition remains valid unless cogent evidence of reunion is established; absent such evidence, the ownership claims of plaintiffs over disputed properties are affirmed.
In partition suits under the Hindu Succession Act, successors are entitled to equal shares regardless of prior unauthorized mutations in land records, affirming co-ownership rights.
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 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....
A Will concerning ancestral property is invalid if the testator lacks the authority to bequeath the property and fails to prove prior partition among heirs.
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
