Orissa Court February 1949 Judgments
Pitamber Mohapatra Vs. Lakshmidhar Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Ori64
Ray, J.1. This arises out of a petition by the defendant in a suit for recovery of loan due upon a handnote, executed by defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 75 including the interest due thereon. The original creditor was one Baishnab Charan Mohapatra since dead. His son and father left behind are respectively defendants 3 and 4 (pro forma). Defendant 2 is the nephew of defendant 1 and is sought to be made liable, the debt being a family debt. The plaintiff comes to sue by virtue of an assignment of certain debts that belonged to Baishnab Charan including the present one effected by a deed of assignment executed on behalf of the legal heirs of Baishnab as well as the Karta of the then existing family, namely, defendant 4 (father of Baishnab). The defendants contest the suit on two grounds: (i) that the assignment does not bind the interest of Baishnab's widow who must have acquired an interest on the death of her husband in the property as she on her own account was not a party to the assign...
Tag this Judgment!The Province of Orissa and anr. Vs. Durjodhan Das Gaontia and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Ori342
Narasimhsm, J.1. These two appeals are by the defts. against tbe judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Bargarh & decreeing the pltf's. suit for a declaration that they have the sole and exclusive right to appoint & dismiss a Nariha who id a village servant & that the revenue authorities have no right to interfere in any way with the exercise of that right by the pltfs.2. Pltf. 1 is the Lambardar Gaontia of Mouza Guclesira which is a Gaontiahi village in Sambalpur district. Pltfs. 2 to 5 are the Punches of the said village who are elected by the raiyats for the purpose of assisting the Lambardar in the management of the village. In the last settlement deft, l was recorded as a Nariha in respect of 9'42 acres of land which were held by him rent, free (Ex. 2 a). In the wazib-ul-arz of the village (ex 2) it is recorded that the Nariha may be dismissed & deprived of his service lands by the Lambardar & the Punches for failure to render due se...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Chandra Gajpati Narayan Deo Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori241
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These sis second appeals arise out of six suits in which a common judgment was delivered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant in all these appeals is the Maharaja of Parlakimedi. These six suits along with two other suits arise is the following circumstances. The plaintiff-Maharaja in the coarse of administration of his estate and collection of rents, obtains decrees for arrears of rent as against defaulting tenants. One section of his office staff attends to the steps necessary to be taken for realisation of these decrees by execution in various Courts. Monies are drawn from time to time from the Estate Treasury for expenses in connection with these execution proceedings towards court-fees, batta memos, vakalats, etc., and entrusted to the clerk or clerks concerned for getting necessary steps taken in the Courts. In or about August 1938, the plaintiff's Dewan received an anonymous information that the money drawn in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnakar Ray and ors. Vs. Kulamoni Roy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Ori266
Ray C.J.1. This is a petn. by defts. 4 to 11 for revising an order passed by Munaif of Cuttack restoring a suit which had been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, C. P. C. The suit was one for specific performance of contract of lease of some waste lands as well as Nijchas lands. The contract had been entered into by defts. 1 to 2, who admittedly are the proprietors. The contract is said to have been entered into on different dates (29-9-44 & 6-2-45) in respect of wastelands & Nijchas lands respectively. The defts. l & 2, however, executed a registered permanent lease in respect of the very same lands in favour of deft. 8 on 4-8-45 The latter about two years after his lease sold his lease-hold interest to defts. 4 to 12 of whom defts 4 to 11 are the petnrs. before us. Admittedly, defts, 4 to 12 were actively contesting the suit. The position in relation to the other defts. is that defts. l to 2 filed & written statement alleging that as the pltf. had failed to pay the promised considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamoni Barik and anr. Vs. Lokenath Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. It is a defendants' appeal in a suit for enforcement of two mortgages executed by the father of the appellants on 13th September 1929 and 28th September 1929 for considerations of Rs. 110 and Rs. 100 respectively. The plaintiff had filed a suit previously for enforcement of the terms of the mortgages being suit No. 883 of 1940 in the Second Munsif's Court, Cuttack. That suit had been set down for hearing on 13th December 1941. There were no steps taken on behalf of the plaintiff on that date nor did either the plaintiff or his pleader respond to the call of the Court. The defendants had applied for 'time on the ground of illness, In these circumstances, the suit was dismissed for default. The order disposing of the suit reads as follows:Defendants 2 and 3 apply fat time on the ground of illness and plaintiff takes no steps. Plaintiff and his pleader do not appear on call. The suit is dismissed for default.Defendant 1 of that suit was the executant of the mortgage bonds and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›