Gurubari v. Krushna
Case brief
What is this about?
This defendants' appeal challenges a trial court and appeal court decree granting title to plaintiffs over suit land. The Court held that defendants failed to prove title by adverse possession as they did not plead or prove the statutory requirements of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
SA No.253 of 1990
From the judgment and decree dated 06.07.1990 and 21.07.1990 respectively passed by Mr. B.B. Kar, learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Boudh in T.A. No. 03 of 1989 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1989 and 11.05.1989 respectively passed by Mr. S.C. Mishra, learned Munsif, Boudh in T.S. No. 09 of 1986.
Gurubari Bewa and others
…. Appellants
Versus
Krushna Chandra Padhi and others …. Respondents
For Appellants … Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Adv. For Respondents … Mr. N.P. Patnaik, Adv.
J U D G M E N T
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs established title to the suit land and whether the defendants perfected title by adverse possession.
Whether the presumption of correctness of the Record of Rights entry is rebutted when the mutation case is sub judice.
Whether the defendants pleaded and proved the classical requirements of adverse possession (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario).
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Gurubari Bewa and others
- respondent
Krushna Chandra Padhi and others
Coram
Dr. A.K. Rath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court