REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO Appellant

V/S

CHARULATA SAHU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NITYAMONI DASI V. GOKUL CHANDRA SEN [REFERRED TO]
SOURENDRA NATH MITRA V. TARUBALA DASI [REFERRED TO]
BAI CHANCHAL VS. SYED JALALUDDIN+ [REFERRED TO]
JAMIL ABDAR KADAR VS. SHANKARLAL GULABCHAND [REFERRED TO]
GURPREFT SINGH VS. CHATUR BHUJ GOEL [REFERRED TO]
PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BYRAM PESTONJI GARIWALA VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. CHANDO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH WASU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN SWEDBANK SPARBANKEN SVERIGE AB ASEA STAL AB VS. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LIMITED :INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LIMITED :INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA CALCUTTA VS. ABHIJIT TEA CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D S LAKSHMAIAH VS. L BALASUBRAMANIYAM [REFERRED TO]
JINESHWARDAS VS. JAGRANI [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT VS. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA VS. CHAKIRI YANADI [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAMMAL VS. MARIMUTHU MAISTRY [REFERRED TO]
SANYASI JENA VS. MINA JENA [REFERRED TO]
TARAPRASANNA SARKAR VS. KALIKAMOHAN SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
BADRINARAYAN SHANKAR BHANDARI VS. OMPRASKASH SHANKAR BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY VS. BALWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. PHULAVATI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
VIR SINGH AND ORS VS. KHARAK SINGH AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
DANAMMA@SUMAN SURPUR AND ANOTHER VS. AMAN AND OTHER [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI VS. BRANCH MANAGER [REFERRED TO]
VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are interrelated; the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Orissa, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Both the captioned appeals are at the instance of the legal representatives and heirs of the original defendant No. 1 (Late Shri Prafulla Sahoo S/o Kumar Sahoo) and are directed against the judgment, order and decree passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dtd. 5/5/2011 in AHO No. 133 of 2000 by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants herein thereby affirming the judgment and decree of partition passed by the Trial Court in the Title Suit No. 348 of 1980 instituted by the original plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) and on the other hand allowed the cross-objections filed by the Original Defendant No. 2, thereby setting aside and declaring the compromise recorded by the First Appellate Court entered into between the Late Prafulla Sahoo and his sister i.e., the Defendant No. 2 in the suit to be invalid.

(3.) This litigation relates to the partition of ancestral properties of one Kumar Sahoo, between the appellants who are the legal representatives and heirs of the Defendant No. 1 (Late Mr. Prafulla Sahoo S/o of Kumar Sahoo), the Respondent No. 1 herein i.e., the Plaintiff (Mrs. Charulata Sahoo daughter of Kumar Sahoo) and the Respondent No. 2 who are the legal representatives and heirs of the Defendant No. 2 (Mrs. Santilata D/o Kumar Sahoo)

Click here to view full judgment.

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. CHARULATA SAHU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address