Krushna Chandra Sahu vs Dheerendra @ Dharmendra
2025 Latest Caselaw 9300 Ori

Orissa High Court

Krushna Chandra Sahu vs Dheerendra @ Dharmendra on 23 October, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   RSA No. 136 of 2025

            Krushna Chandra Sahu               .....                                 Appellants

                                                                    Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate.
                                               -Versus-
            Dheerendra @ Dharmendra            .....                                Respondent
            Prasad Sahu

                                       CORAM:
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
                                                       ORDER

23.10.2025

Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01. 2. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. Perused the impugned judgments. Considering the submissions made and the grounds raised, the second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

"(i) Whether the learned courts below were correct in holding that the adoption is valid basing upon the registered document when the ingredients of a valid adoption was not proved by the adoptee in the court of law?

(ii) Whether the learned courts below erred in holding that Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 prohibits the Benami Transactions but Section 4(3) of the Act is an exception to Section 4(1) of the Act. When Section 4(3) of the Act says nothing in this section shall apply where the persons in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparcener in the family.?

(iii) Whether the learned courts below were correct in holding that adoption deed cannot be cancelled but should have held that scheduled property is not hit by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction Act and therefore should have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the scheduled land?

(iv) Whether the learned courts below were correct in applying Article 57 of the Limitation Act in the facts of the case?

4. Issue notice to the respondent by speed post, returnable within four weeks. Requisites shall be filed within three days.

5. Call for the LCR.

6. List this matter for hearing in the month of July, 2026.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

Order No. 1. Status quo with regard to the suit property as on date shall be

02. maintained by both the parties till the next date.

2. Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

                                                       (Sashikanta Mishra)
 A.K. Rana                                                   Judge