Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)
Sapa Simadri Patro (Dead), After Him ... vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 29 August, 2007 cites

Ishwara Bhat vs Annappa Naika on 30 January, 1997

In the case of Ishwara Bhat v. Annappa Naik (supra) the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the plea that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, but the defendant who is owner of the adjacent property was interfering with his possession. There the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not disputed although the land was Government land. Therefore, the Court observed that the person in possession is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the trespassers. In all these cases the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not in dispute and impletion of the State was not necessary for effective adjudication of the issues. Accordingly, it was held that the State was not necessary party and the suit would not be invalid for non-joinder of the State Government. The ratio of these cases is of no help to the plaintiff-appellant because right, title and possession of part of the suit property have been declared in favour of Kasinath Sahu by a competent Court, some part of the suit property has been recorded in the name of Gopinath Sahu, who claims possession over that land and encroachment proceeding is pending against Ratnamani Padhi for his unauthorized occupation of a portion of the suit land. There were also other evidence, which have been reflected in the impugned judgment showing that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit property. That being so, a suit for permanent injunction relating to the entire suit property at the behest of the plaintiff was not maintainable without impleading the persons, who have been declared in possession or are claiming possession over portion of the suit property. The Courts below were, therefore, justified in observing that Kasinath Sahu was a necessary party and the plaintiff was estopped from bringing any suit for injunction with respect to the lands which have been decreed in favour of Kasinath Sahu in Title Suit No. 9 of 1978.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Paramananda Pradhan And Anr. vs Palau Sahu And Ors. on 16 November, 1983

6. Law is settled through judicial pronouncements as in the cases of Paramananda Pradhan and Anr. v. Palau Sahu and Ors. 56 (1983) CLT 482 (FB); and Mangulu Jal and Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai and Ors. 41 (1975) CLT 526 (FB) that the Civil Court normally will not have jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory Tribunal if such Tribunal is competent to decide the issue involved, but it is always open to the Civil Courts which are the Courts of general jurisdiction -to consider and decide whether the statutory Tribunal has acted within the ambit of powers conferred upon it by the statute to which it owes its existence or the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the principles of judicial procedure or has transgressed the limits placed on its powers by the legislature.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Magulu Jal And Ors. vs Bhagaban Rai And Ors. on 15 April, 1975

6. Law is settled through judicial pronouncements as in the cases of Paramananda Pradhan and Anr. v. Palau Sahu and Ors. 56 (1983) CLT 482 (FB); and Mangulu Jal and Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai and Ors. 41 (1975) CLT 526 (FB) that the Civil Court normally will not have jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory Tribunal if such Tribunal is competent to decide the issue involved, but it is always open to the Civil Courts which are the Courts of general jurisdiction -to consider and decide whether the statutory Tribunal has acted within the ambit of powers conferred upon it by the statute to which it owes its existence or the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the principles of judicial procedure or has transgressed the limits placed on its powers by the legislature.
Orissa High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Parbati Sham Achary vs Smt. Manasi Devi on 25 February, 1977

In the case of Parbati Sham Achary (supra) the defendant did not vacate the house after termination of the tenancy and the relief was sought against him by the landlord-plaintiff. There was nothing on record to show that Government interfered with the possession of the plaintiff at any point of time and so no relief could be sought against the Government. Considering that situation it was held that State Government was not a necessary party for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1