Sukanti v. Nira
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal concerning a suit for declaration and possession of property, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court for non-joinder of necessary parties, Gelhi and Kia, who held rights in the property.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 110 OF 1989
From the judgment and decree dated 23.12.88 and 7.1.89 respectively passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Boudh in T.A. 7 of 1988.
Sukanti Sahu and others …… Appellants
- VersusNira Bewa and others …… Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Basudev Pujari, advocate. For Respondents : M/s. M.K.Mallick, P.K. Bhuyan, Miss. R.Mohanty, and S.S. Swain, advocates.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of hearing-03.08.2016 : Date of judgment- 02.112016
- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Boudh (as it was then) in T.A. 7 of 1988 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Boudh in T.S. No. 37 of 1977.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for declaration of right and possession is maintainable when necessary parties of the property are not impleaded.
Whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sukanti Sahu and others
- respondent
Nira Bewa and others
Coram
D. Dash
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court