Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Kailash Chandra Barik – Appellant
Versus
Kapura Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inheritance rights based on lineage and documentation (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. maintenance of suit based on historical family law (Para 8 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. admissibility of arguments challenging the plaintiff's claim (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal based on lack of merit (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants of this Second Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.69 of 1991 and they were the respondents before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No. 4 of 1994.
The respondent of this 2nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.69 of 1991 and she was the appellant before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No. 4 of 1994.
3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.69 of 1991 before the Trial Court against the defendants (appellants in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for partition and declaration.
4. The case of the plaintiff was that, Banthia Barik had married Benga, but he (Banthia Barik) had kept Padma as his concubine. Raya Barik was the son of Banthia Bari
The omission of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act allows a married daughter to seek partition in joint family property, disregarding her marital status and absence of other daughters.
Widow's remarriage does not strip her of inheritance rights, and married daughters have equal entitlement to family property under the amended Hindu Succession Act.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
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 partition requires substantiating evidence of genealogy and heirs; mere allegations are insufficient. Equal shares were affirmed for the parties, reflecting the law of inheritance. This le....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central enactment prevails over the State law, and the daughters, including those married prior to 1994, are entitled to an equal share in....
(1) Title – Mere recording of name in Record of Rights neither creates title nor extinguishes title in whose favour same is recorded.(2) Donee cannot get better title through gift, than his/her donor....
The conditions for claiming benefits under Section 4 of the Partition Act require a dwelling house to be in existence at the time of transfer, which the appellant failed to establish.
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
