Budhuram v. Jhana
Case brief
What is this about?
In this partition appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellants' challenge to lower court decrees. The court held that mere possession by a defendant co-owner, without a specific plea of ouster, does not warrant framing an issue on adverse possession. The appeal was disposed of affirming the lower decree.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, confirming the lower court judgments and preliminary decrees.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SA No.92 of 1997
In the matter of an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1997 and 18.01.1997 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Title Appeal No.21 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1989 and 20.12.1989 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baripada in T.S. No.44 of 1987.
….
Budhuram Majhi & Another Appellants
-versus-
….
Jhana Majhi (Since Dead) and Respondents
Others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
-
For Appellants Mr.A.K. Nayak
(Advocate)
For Respondents - Mr.A.K. Rao, M.K. Mohanty,
S.P. Das, P.K. Sandh,
S.K. Rath, M. Sampat &
J.K. Jena
(Advocates)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2022 :: Date of Judgment:20.06.2022
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section- 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 04.01.1997 and 18.01.1997 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Title Appeal No.21 of 1990.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court erred by not framing an issue on acquisition of title by adverse possession when the defendant failed to plead ouster of co-owners?
Whether the suit for partition should be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party, the daughter of Defendant No.2?
Whether possession by one co-owner constitutes adverse possession against other co-owners without an express plea of ouster in the written statement?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Budurham Majhi
- respondent
Jhana Majhi
Coram
D. Dash
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court