Satrughna v. Sarat
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Orissa dismissed an second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court held that the suit land was not identifiable from the plaint as the description did not pin down the specific encroached portion.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
S.A. No.275 of 1998
From the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1998 and 10.09.1998 respectively passed by Shri M.R. Hazra, learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No.53/27 of 97/92 confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1992 and 04.09.1992 respectively passed by Shri Niranjan Dash, learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 168 of 1985 (I).
----------Satrughna Parija …. Appellant Versus Sarat Majhi and others …. Respondents For Appellant … Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Adv. For Respondents … None.
J U D G M E N T
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing and judgment: 03.04.2018
DR.A.K.RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.
02. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit schedule land. The defendants made an attempt to encroach upon a portion of the suit land.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit land is identifiable given the description by survey number, boundary, and dimension.
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground of non-identifiable land.
Whether an executable decree can be passed despite discrepant pleading and evidence regarding the land.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Satrughna Parija
- respondent
Sarat Majhi and others
Coram
A.K. Rath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court