Mana v. P.Krishna
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the second appeal filed by a defendant who challenged title declarations in his favour. The court held that Record of Rights does not create or extinguish title, the suit was not barred by limitation, and adverse possession was not established due to lack of factual pleading.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
S.A. No.253 of 1999
From the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1999 and 23.6.1999 respectively passed by Sri D. Chaulia, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jeypore in T.A. No.11 of 1998 confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1997 and 23.9.1997 respectively passed by Shri Mohammed Ajmal, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jeypore in T.S. No.16 of 1995.
Mana Bisoi …………..… Appellant ---versus— Potnuru Krishna and others ……………… Respondents For Appellant : Miss Somalin Pattnaik, Advocate For Respondents : None
J U D G M E N T
P R E S E N T:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.K. RATH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing : 10.04.2018 │ Date of Judgment: 23.04.2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A.K. Rath, J. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming
judgment.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned courts below were justified in declaring title and possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs when the record of rights was in the name of the appellant's father.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation having been filed forty years after publication of the Record of Rights.
Whether the plea of adverse possession was maintainable without pleading and proving the classical requirements of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mana Bisoi
- respondent
Potnuru Krishna
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