Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Duruju Mallik And Etc. vs Krupasindhu Swain And Ors. Etc. on 31 August, 1984

Gulzar Khan vs Commissioner Of Consolidation And Ors. on 7 May, 1993

23. in so far as the bar imposed by Section 51 is concerned, it is not necessary for us to labour on the Jaw on this subject, because the Bar has accepted that what has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in this regard in Magulu Jal v. Bhagaban Rai, AIR 1975 Ori 219 which was followed by another Full Bench of this Court in Duruju Mallik v. Krupasindhu Swain : 58 (1984) CLT 359 is correct and holds the field even now.
Orissa High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 19 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Rabindranath Sahu vs Suresh Ch. Nayak And Ors. on 3 July, 2002

"The impugned order becomes unsustainable on another ground also. As already noted above, one of the reliefs sought in the suit was to permanently injunct the defendant No. 1 to enter upon lands described in Schedule 'S' and 'C' of the plaint. It is now well settled that the suit for permanent injunction does not abate under Section 4(4) of the Act since the Act makes no provision enabling the consolidation authorities to grant the relief of injunction. (See 54 (1982) CLT 143; Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Charan Sutar and Ors. and 58(1984) C.L.T. 359; (1984 (1) OLR 887); (Duruju Mallik v. Krupasindhu Swain). As such the present suit wherein one of the reliefs sought was for permanent injunction and wherein an application under Order 39, Rule 1 CPC, had been made and order of injunction had been passed could not beheld to have abated under Section 4(4) of the Act. The legal position on both the grounds enunciated above is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties."
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - L K Mohapatra - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Vidya Sharma And Anr. on 12 December, 2002

12. On perusal of the decision of this Court in Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain v. Krupasindhu Swain, reported in (1984) 58 CLT 359 : AIR 1985 Orissa 202 (FB), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 1 find that the judgment was rendered in a case arising out of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 and the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - B P Das - Full Document

Munni Sao And Etc. vs K.D. Sharma And Ors. on 3 July, 1992

In the case of Anwar Ali (supra) the learned single Judge while holding that the suit for injunction is maintainable even after the notification under Section 3 of the Act has adopted the reasonings given by the Full Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Duruju Mallik (AIR 1985 Orissa 202) (supra) wherein it has been held that if the grant of injunction depends upon the determination of right or interest in any land situated within the consolidation area, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. In order to determine whether the suit for injunction is maintainable or not the whole pleading has to be looked into and not merely the form of pleadings.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Mehar Singh vs State on 6 December, 2024

before he gets the injunction to prevent recurrence of its violation and Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain an act which inflicts no legal wrong on the plaintiff. The grant of absolute injunction resulting in an invasion of the defendant's legitimate right to use his own property and restrain him from enjoying his own land is wholly illegal. The right in him gives rise to corresponding obligations to in another, be he a private person or a public functionary. Reliance is placed upon Prasana Meesale v Binod Chandra Samal, 1974 (2) C.W.R. 937, Duruju Malik, Duryodhan Swain v Krupasindhu Swain, (1984) 58 CUTLT 359, Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane v Vithu Hira Mahar, (2009) 10 SCC 273. at p. 290 and Anand & Iyers's The Specific Relief Act, 1963. 9(f). Adverting, to the facts of the present case, admittedly, plaintiffs have no proof of ownership over the suit property or say there is no document on record/produced by the plaintiffs which may be helpful in establishing their (plaintiffs) ownership qua the suit property. Ownership needs to be established to consider the aspect of possession whether it was with plaintiffs? and, if, it is so whether it is valid or not? The fact remains that no revenue record was produced by the plaintiffs to show that the land in question was ever mutated in their favour. Plaintiffs though are claiming/asserting their ownership over the suit property through their father and more specifically through their grandfather Late Ghasi Ram stating that latter was the owner of the Khasra bearing number 37/18/1 (earlier Khasra number 1134 admeasuring 1 bigha 12 biswa). It is to be noted that Late Ghasi Ram, had filed a suit for declaration qua the aforesaid khasra number alongwith other khasra numbers and it is claimed by the plaintiffs, herein, that the suit filed by their grandfather was decided in his favour.
Delhi District Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sairendri Sahu vs Subasini Sahu @ Pradhan And Another .... ... on 29 March, 2019

If 3 grant of permanent injunction depends upon the determination of the right and interest in any land situated in the consolidation area, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. He further contended that a stranger cannot challenge the sale deed on the ground of legal necessity, unless he or she has interest in the property. In view of the same, the plaint may be rejected. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decisions in the case of Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain v. Kruspasindhu Swain and others, AIR 1985 Ori, 200, Girija Mohanty v. R.D.C. (Central Division), Cuttack and others, 2009 (I) OLR-198, Rajendra Kumar Routray and others v. Gourahari Pattnayak and others, 2017 (II) ILR-CUT 600, Jashoda Mahana v. Shibashankar Mahana, 2018 (I) OLR-816, Bholanath Bal and others v. Nandi Bal and others, 2018 (I) OLR 173 and Grama Devati, Satabhauni Thakurani and others v. Ranga Bewa and others, 2018 (I) CLR 227.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document

Sri Paramananda Panda And Ors. vs Punananda Das And Anr. [Alongwith Civil ... on 11 January, 1985

4. The impugned order becomes unsaustainable on another ground also. As already noted above, one of the reliefs sought in the suit was to permanently injunct the defendant No. 1 to enter upon lands described in Schedule 'S' and 'C of the plaint. It is now well settled that the suit for permanent injunction does not abate under Section 4(4) of the Act since the Act makes no provision enabling the consolidation authorities to grant the relief of injunction. [See 54 (1982) C. L. T. 143 : Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Charan Sutar and Ors. and 58(1984) C.L.T. 359 : (1984 (I) OLR 887); Duruju Mailik v. Krupasindhu Swain]. As such the present suit wherein one of the reliefs sought was for permanent injunction and wherein an application under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., had been made and order of injunction had been passed could not be held to have abated under Section 4(4) of the Act. The legal position on both the grounds enunciated above is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1