Dismissed

Manoranjan Das v. Suresh Chandra Mohanty @ Suresh Kumar Mohanty

Orissa HC12 Sept 2023CMP/525/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a curative petition challenging an appellate court confirmation of an interim injunction restraining a petitioner (purchaser/stranger to family) from entering suit land, noting the impugned order was already worked out via crop harvesting application.

What did the court decide?

The curative petition was dismissed as the impugned order was already complied with and devoid of any merit.

Manoranjan Das Vs Suresh Chandra Mohanty @ Suresh Kumar Mohanty — Partition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CMP NO.525 OF 2023 Manoranjan Das and others

¶3

…. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Suresh Chandra Mohanty @ Suresh …. Opp. Parties Kumar Mohanty

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.09.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Judgment dated 21^st January, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in FAO No.66 of 2022 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby dismissing the appeal, learned appellate Court confirmed the order dated 5^th November, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur in IA No.220 of 2022 (arising out of CS No.395 of 2022) restraining the Petitioner from entering upon the schedule B, C, and D of the suit property till disposal of the suit. However, a liberty has been granted by learned appellate Court to move learned trial Court by filing appropriate application for harvesting the crops alleged to have been raised by the Petitioners.

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the suit has been filed for a decree of preemption to repurchase the land sold by Defendant No.5 and 6 to the Petitioners and for other consequential and ancillary reliefs.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

It is his submission that since the Plaintiffs are not Class-I heirs of the common ancestor, a suit under Section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 is not maintainable. Further, on purchase of the suit property, the Petitioners have raised crops and it was ready for harvesting. At that juncture, an application was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in IA No.220 of 2022 which was allowed restraining the Petitioners purchasers from entering upon the suit schedule B, C, and D properties. Learned appellate Court in FAO No.66 of 2022 confirmed the said order. However, it gave liberty to the Petitioners to file an application for appropriate direction to harvest crops, in accordance with the observation made in the para 13 of the Judgment of the appellate Court.

¶19

It is further submitted that while deciding the appeal, learned appellate Court came to a finding that the Petitioners are not entitled to possession of the land purchased by them, as they are strangers to the family but have only right to sue for partition of the property and adjust their share from the land allotted to their vendor. As such, the observation made at para 12 of the appellate Court’s Judgment will prejudice the Petitioners at the time of adjudication of the suit.

¶20

It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that pursuant to the direction of learned appellate Court, the Petitioners have already moved trial Court and the said application was allowed.

¶21

In view of the fact that the Petitioners in compliance to the liberty given by the appellate Court in FAO No.66 of 2022 have already moved to learned trial Court, the order impugned

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

herein is no more available to be challenged as it has already been worked out.

¶25

Since the Petitioners are admittedly strangers to the joint family and purchasers of the joint property, they do not have any independent right to occupy a definite portion of the suit land unless and until the suit land is partitioned by metes and bound. In view of the above, I find no infirmity either in order under Annexure-3 or under Annexure-5.

¶26

Accordingly, the CMP, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.

¶28

Rojalin

¶29

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 14:11:28

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Manoranjan Das v. Suresh Chandra Mohanty @ Suresh Kumar Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Das v. Suresh Chandra Mohanty @ Suresh Kumar Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harekrushna Sahu Vs Gopinath Sethy

Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Pankajini @ Puspa Kanhar @ Kumbhar Vs Dillip Kumbhar

Rama Chandra Bagarti Vs Hemabati Banchhor

Batakarushna Lenka Vs Secy., G.A. Dept.

Abhaya Kumar Pradhan Vs Secy., G.A. Dept