Orissa Court September 1948 Judgments
Tirtha Naik and ors. Vs. Lal Sadananda Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Ori99
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the District Judge, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. The plaintiffs are the descendants of one Nidhi Gountia, who was admittedly the Gountia of the village of Kermali within the ambit of the defendant's zamindari of Borasambar. The plaintiffs' case is that Nidhi Gountia held the village on a Thikadari tenure and that by way of a family arrangement had allotted the 'sir' and 'bhogra' lands of the village to his sons; that the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint had been allotted to his son, Maheswar; and the lands described in Schedule C had similarly been allotted to his son, Gangadhar. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 3-6 are, respectively, the descendants of Maheswar and Gangadhar. The lands described in Sch. D were, according to the plaintiffs, allotted to three other sons of Nidhi, who are not concerned with the present dispute, and those properties are not in suit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Bhattar Vs. Mahendranath Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-15-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori73
Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors, against an order of the District Judge, setting aside that of an Executing Court, who purporting to act under Section 151, Civil P.C., set aside the sale, held in execution of a decree for rent. The question, whether it was a rent decree, pure and simple, or a money-decree, does not arise in the case.2. The facts, shortly stated, are that a decree for Rs. 668-8-3 was passed against the judgment-debtors, for arrears of rent due in respect of a tenure. Execution was taken out, and the tenure was sold to the highest bidder being the respondent in this appeal. Two petitions were filed in the Executing Court, one by Muralidhar Bhattar, purporting to be one under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., and the other by Gopi Kissan Bhattar under Order 21, Rule 9. While these petitions were lying un-disposed of, Muralidhar filed a second application labelling it as one under Section 151, Civil P.C., seeking the relief of setting aside the sale, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Saradhakar Naik and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Siba Prasad Misra and ors. Vs. Mt. Nurabati Zamindariani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Ori37
Ray, C.J.1. The questions, referred to the Full Bench are:(1) Whether Section 10, Orissa Money-lenders Act (Act III [3] of 1939), as amended by Section 4, Orissa Moneylenders Amendment Act (Act XVIII [18] of 1947), is retrospective so as to control decrees to be passed in suits and appeals brought before, bat pending at the time, of the commencement of the Amending Act; and(2) whether in giving effect to the provisions of the section, in a suit based on an agreement by which the parties have agreed to treat the sum-total of the past liabilities, in respect of sum actually lent and the unpaid balance of interest due thereon, as the principal of a fresh loan-transaction, carrying stipulated rate of interest for the future, the Court can go behind the said agreement and limit the decree on account of interest, for the period preceding the institution of the suit, to a sum, which together with any amount already realised as interest, is not greater than the amount originally advanced; orIn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›