JEMMA Vs. RAGHU
LAWS(ORI)-1976-7-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on
July 21,1976
JEMMA
Appellant
VERSUS
RAGHU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MASJID SHAHID GANJ V. S.G.P.COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]SECRETARY OF STATE V. I.M.LALL [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR VS. MAHOMED JAFFARMOHAMED HUSSEIN [REFERRED TO]
NANDURI YOGANANDA LAKSHMINARASIMHACHARI VS. AGASTHE SWARASWAMIVARU [REFERRED TO]
HASHMAT HUSAIN VS. INAYATULLAH [REFERRED TO]
BAISHNABA CHARAN ACHARYYA VS. NITYANANDA SATAPATHY [REFERRED TO]
BHAGABAN GOUDA VS. UKIA DEI [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL NABI SAHIB VS. BAJAN SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
UDOYCHAND PANALAL VS. PEGUZDAR AND CO [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MRS. PREMILA GRUBB VS. AIR MARSHALL L.P. PEREIRA, P.V.S.M. (RETD.) AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-208] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF ORISSA VS. BHAGIRATHI MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
CHENNARU NAGHBHUSAN RAO VS. M RAMA RAO [LAWS(ORI)-1991-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
SATYABHAMA DAS VS. SAILABALA MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-1984-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. SANJAY PALIWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD NIWAI VS. BHURA [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
PREMILA GRUBB AIR MARSHALL L.P. PEREIRA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
GYASUDDIN VS. ALLAH TALA WAQF MAUSUMA [LAWS(ALL)-1984-12-46] [DISTINGUISHED]
MAHESH SHARMA VS. J D A [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
ARJEES WOOL AND FUR INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(ALL)-1991-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
PR. PALANIAPPAN VS. CT. C. NACHIAPPA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BHAVNAGAR AUTO RESORTS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS VS. TULSI DASS AHUJA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-1995-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. HEMA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTARANJAN SAHOO VS. COLLECTOR, KHURDA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER ARORA VS. P N MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-12] [REFERRED]
MAHADEBA DEBATA VS. DEENABANDHU DEBATA [LAWS(ORI)-1977-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU SIDHARTHAN VS. SIDHARTHAN [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-145] [REFERRED]
SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD., RANIPUR, HARIDWAR [LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS is a Letters Patent appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.
(2.)ON 14-5-1970, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the properties in dispute belonged to her, the order of the Estates Abolition Collector settling the lands with the defendant was void, for permanent injunction against the defendant from entering upon the disputed properties and for recovery of possession of a house on the allegation that the disputed properties constituted village carpenter's service inam and on the death of Jogi (plaintiff's husband) in 1921, his son Gadadhar had succeeded to the property. Gadadhar however, died in 1943 and thereafter plaintiff was in possession of the disputed properties. As the defendant started interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment, she was forced to come to court.
(3.)DEFENDANT is the son of Jogi's brother Bhima. According to his case, after Jogi died in 1921, Bhima rendered service and came to possess the property. Bhima died in 1945 and after him, defendant was rendering service and was in possession. In regard to two plots, no claim was raised by the defendant.
(2.)ON 14-5-1970, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the properties in dispute belonged to her, the order of the Estates Abolition Collector settling the lands with the defendant was void, for permanent injunction against the defendant from entering upon the disputed properties and for recovery of possession of a house on the allegation that the disputed properties constituted village carpenter's service inam and on the death of Jogi (plaintiff's husband) in 1921, his son Gadadhar had succeeded to the property. Gadadhar however, died in 1943 and thereafter plaintiff was in possession of the disputed properties. As the defendant started interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment, she was forced to come to court.
(3.)DEFENDANT is the son of Jogi's brother Bhima. According to his case, after Jogi died in 1921, Bhima rendered service and came to possess the property. Bhima died in 1945 and after him, defendant was rendering service and was in possession. In regard to two plots, no claim was raised by the defendant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.