Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
JIBANBALLABHA – Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA – Respondent
Judgment :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.1 and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical and challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal Case Nos.97 and 98 of 1996 as well as the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.290 and 291 of 1997 under Annexure-5 and 6, with parties being same in both the Writ Petitions, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that challenging the sale deed executed by Lt. Narayan Mohanty, the common ancestor of the present petitioners vide Sale Deed No.2326 dated 23.03.1967 under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, as well as seeking partition of the suit schedule Ka and Kha property, the present petitioners filed O.S. No.49 of 1974-I in the Court of Learned Sub-Judge, Puri. The suit was filed by the present petitioners against Lt. Narayan Mohanty and the vendees of the Sale Deed dated 23.03.1967.
3.1. It is contend
The absence of challenge to a sale deed justified the orders of recording land in favor of the Opposite Party, as previous judicial findings did not apply to the current property disputes.
The court upheld previous rulings that recognized the legality of a sale deed while dismissing claims against it, asserting no procedural errors in Appellate or Revisional decisions occurred.
The court upheld that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, reinforcing the principle that claims related to property must be initiated within th....
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
A property owner cannot partition their exclusive assets among heirs who lack legal interest; valid sale deeds establish ownership rights.
Sale deeds declared void for violating land consolidation laws, stressing the necessity of procedural due process in adjudicatory proceedings.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
(1) Partition Suit – A Person who does not have a share in such property cannot be a party to a suit for partition.(2) Nomenclature of document, whether it was a sale deed or family settlement deed o....
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
