Kailash v. Sahadeb
Case brief
What is this about?
In this appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Orissa upheld the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's title suit. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim of permissive possession, finding that the defendant had established title by adverse possession over Schedule-B land.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SA No.244 of 1992
In the matter of an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1992 and 14.08.1992 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Title Appeal No.27 of 1991 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1991 and 24.08.1991 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Koraput in Title Suit No.36 of 1991.
….
Kailash Pandey Appellant
-versus-
Sahadev Sahu …. Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.B.C. Panda
(Advocate)
For Respondent - Mr.P.V.B. Rao
(Advocate)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2022 : Date of Judgment:20.06.2022
The original Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1992 and 14.08.1992 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in title Appeal No.27 of 1991.
By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Respondent (Plaintiff) under section 96 of the Code has been allowed whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1991 and 24.08.1991 respectively
Page 1 of 7
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff failed to establish permissive possession, thereby defeating the defendant's claim of title by adverse possession.
Whether the substantial questions of law regarding adverse possession and onus of proof were answered correctly by the lower appellate court.
Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the defendant's title by adverse possession should be upheld.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kailash Pandey
- respondent
Sahadev Sahu
Coram
D. Dash
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court