Orissa Court August 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prafulla Kumar Sahu Vs. Charulata Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR427
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed the suit for partition. The undisputed genealogy is as follows :Kumar Ch. Sahu|___________________________________________________________________________| | | | |Nilamani Charulata Santi Prafulla Debendra(adopted (Plaff.) (D-2) (D-1) (died inby Dhruba) 1968)In view of adoption of Nilamani by another person and death of Debendra in 1968, plaintiff, her sister (defendant No.2) and brother (defendant No. 1) continued as members of the family of Kumar Sahu, who admittedly died in the year 1969. As per the plaintiff's allegation, the properties described in Schedules-A to F of the plaint are joint ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Subsequently after death of the father, misunderstanding arose giving rise to the filing of the suit for partition. The plaintiff claimed one-third share in the properties described in Schedules-A to F.2. Defendant No. 2 had filed a written statement substa...
Debasis Kumar Dey Vs. Smt. Sova Ray and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(II)OLR512
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He has filed Title Suit No. 252 of 1999 against the present respondents and others for declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 32 of 1968 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada, is void and for allotment of share with further prayer that the alienation made in favour of present respondents 3 to 10 is not binding and for permanent injunction restraining such purchasers from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and defendants 17 to 25. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., seeking to injunct the present respondents 3 to 10 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in respect of 'A' Schedule properties of the injunction application and for restraining the present respondents 1 to 2 from alienating any portion of the disputed properties as mentioned in Schedule 'B' of the said application.2. The trial Court has rejected such application o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›