Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Rama Chandra Behera – Appellant
Versus
Babu Behera – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues framed in the trial regarding ownership and possession. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. appellate court's reasoning for reversing trial court's decision. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal assessment of sale deeds concerning minor's property. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion and confirmation of trial court judgment. (Para 18) |
2. The appellants of this Second Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I.
The respondent Nos.2 to 4 of this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 5 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.5 of 1980-I and they were the respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide M.A. No.70 of 1983-I
4. According to the plaintiffs' case, the suit properties were originally belonged to the father of defendant No.1 i.e. Jagannath Behera. That Jagannath Behera (father of defendant No.1) sold the suit properties to the defendant No.4 (Laskhaman Biswal) along with father of the d
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....
Pre-emption rights under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be invoked by non-Class I heirs after property partition and are valid until declared otherwise by a competent court.
No court permission is required for a Karta to sell joint family property when such sale is established as for family necessity under Hindu law, even involving minor interests.
The sale made by a guardian is voidable, but a suit to challenge it must be filed within the limitation period. Failure to challenge intervening sale deeds and non-joinder of necessary parties can le....
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 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.
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 alienate their undivided share in joint property, and unilateral cancellation of a sale deed is legally ineffective unless supported by substantial evidence.
A de facto guardian cannot alienate a minor's property without court permission, rendering such transactions void.
Legal necessity must be proven to invalidate a sale deed executed for minors' benefit, with the burden of proof on defendants to contest authenticity.
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
