Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Rajinikanta Seth – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Naik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of ongoing partition appeals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against analogous hearing. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. effects of preliminary and final decrees. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. importance of concurrent appeal resolution. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decision and directive for expedited hearing. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.A.Guru, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K.Satapathy, learned counsel for Opposite Parties.
2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 12th April 2024 of learned Additional District Judge, Kuchinda passed in RFA No.05 of 2023, wherein RFA No.92 of 2006 and RFA No.05 of 2023 have been clubbed together for hearing.
3. The Plaintiff who is the present Petitioner, filed the suit praying for a decree of partition. The preliminary decree was issued on 30th November 2004 and challenging the same RFA No.92 of 2006 was preferred before the 1st Appellate Court by the Defendants. Said RFA No.92 of 2006 was dismissed for default on 4th February 2019 and subsequently restored on 24th July 2023. But in the meantime, the final decree proceeding was completed drawing final decree dated 12th April 20234. After restoration of RFA No
The court ruled the necessity of hearing appeals against preliminary and final decrees simultaneously in partition suits to ensure a just resolution of shares and rights, emphasizing that the final d....
An appeal against a final decree is maintainable even if no appeal is filed against the preliminary decree, provided the correctness of the preliminary decree is not challenged.
Execution of final decree – claim of share - first respondent cannot take shelter under this provision for seeking enhancement when she herself admits to have taken possession and received money by e....
A preliminary decree in a partition suit which provides specific mechanisms for partition or sale in the event of impartibility is enforceable, and the court should proceed suo motu to finalize parti....
A partition suit concludes with the final decree, and parties cannot seek modification of shares based on subsequent legislative changes after the final decree is passed.
The main legal point established was the interpretation of the decree dated 17th February 2016 as a final decree for partition, influencing the dismissal of the application for a final decree.
A preliminary decree in a partition suit does not constitute a decree under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act for mutation purposes.
Partition suit – Suit comes to an end only when final decree is drawn.
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
