S. Muralidhar, CJ, also known as Mohapatra, J. After applying the substantial expression doctrine, the so -called proposals in the property dispute are partially authorized. The immediate appeal was addressed to the decision of a single judge.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The problem was that the Gohs binary and dayanidi were two children, the second wife of the late Nandy Gohn, the common ancestor. The last branch of the two children and Dinu was extinguished. There were two women in Pahard. Ganesh was the son of his first wife, and the dance (defendant 1), Nandu and Dayanidi (plaintiff) were the second wife. Ganesh died and four children left Abuinash, Kurtibash, Kalas and Slinibas. In addition, it was declared that Kairash died, leaving the widow, said defendant 5, and his daughter Jema (accused 6). Viney’s children were accused on 7, 8, 9, 10. Nandu died. He died, leaving his wife Padmabati. Consequently, the dispute remained among the complainants / appellants, accused / questioned 1 and 7 to 10. The complainants: the applicants said that in the previous division, Ganesh acquired the AC on April 40 and separated from the joint family. The property described in the attached book “KHA” was the ancestor, and the property of “GA” was the name of the defendant 1 as a carta of a co -family of the community. Previously, Padmabati, a widow of Nandu, had submitted a score request, but the commitment was declared. The applicant’s lawsuit was that the defendant 1 Gose Baina acquired a partition on March 27, 1962. It is said that the land in the AC 10.00 area, which is the property of the co -family, was out of the script. The applicant was assigned to the attached book “KHA” and “GA” on the Earth’s decoration AC13.00. The court supported the effectiveness of partition certificates. The property of the “GA” calendar took place jointly under the partition certificate. A single judge also determined that the property of the ”GA” calendar was a self -mail property that the applicant was not shared. Therefore, the first appeal was rejected
The Superior Court had expired and had to be replaced by some parts, some of the persons presented as legal representatives, but the main LR struggle and appeals. The name of the girl (telephone) 4) and the 3 and 3 girls, and the LR of the main accused of protest, Bina Gors, was recorded. The theory of “substantial expression” was explained in the decision of this court of Sarato Chandra Deb. Bichitrananda Sahoo, Air 1951 Ori 212, I tried here: “… If the expression became appropriate, the instructions were limited and could not resume.” In the current field, This procedure does not exist, but the main parts of the prosecutors dispute are represented by the court, so listening to the appeal is a substantial expression and product doctrine. The bank accepted a single judge that the calendar of the product “ga” should not be retained in the car -administration of the original defendant. It was the responsibility of a single judge to recognize this position and not supervise the problem after the two brothers, after revealing that the property of “GA” would be distributed among the parties. Consequently, the appeal was partially authorized to clarify that Gas goods were treated jointly and were divided between the two main conflicts and the LR.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY Kunmun Das.