Orissa Court May 1949 Judgments
Govinda Mohapatra Vs. T. Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Ori6
Ray, C.J.1. This is defendant 8's appeal in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th July 1926 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Narain Gantayat. The aforesaid mortgage was executed in full discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16th December 1911 for a consideration of Rs. 8000. The latter consideration was made up of cash advances from time to time under promotes and the interests that accrued due thereon. It is undisputed that out of the consideration of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 6000 represented interest accruing due on the pronotes and the prior mortgage bond, the balance being the amounts advanced in cash. Defendants 1 and 2 are the primary mortgagors. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 6 and 7 are sons of defendant 2. Defendant 8, the present appellant is a, purchaser of Schedules B-1 and B-2 properties subject to the mortgage. Defendants 9 to 12 are also subsequent purchasers of certain minor items of mor...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Sahu and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for declaration that the suit lands are their ancestral joint family properties and that defendant 1 has not acquired any title thereto by virtue of a sale-deed dated 27-2-1940, executed by defendant 2. The plaintiffs and the husband of defendant 2 were members of a-joint Hindu Mitakshara family at the time of the latter's death. On his death, defendant 2 succeeded to her husband's interest in the family properties under the Hindu Women's Eight to Property Act She transferred her this interest in favour of defendant 1 by the aforesaid sale-deed. The suit was resisted on the ground that defendant a had the right to alienate and the said alienation is binding on the plaintiffs. There was some dispute as between the parties as to whether the claimed properties were ancestral joint family properties. That controversy, however, has been set at rest and has not been re-agitated here. In this appeal, we shall proceed oh the assumption that Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingh Charan Mohapatra Vs. Radhakanta Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Ori132
Panigrahi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings in a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack, by one Radhakanta Mohapatra, son of the appellant, Choudhury Narasingh Charan Mohapatra, for a partition of the joint family properties belonging to himself and his father. The suit was registered as O. S. No. 9 of 1945 and was ultimately compromised on 18-1-1946 by a deed of compromise the parties agreeing to have the partition of their properties in equal shares through the mediation of Bhadraloks and undertaking to file allotment lists in Court within one month from the date of compromise. The allotment, however, did not materialise for some reason or other and the plaintiff thereupon filed a petition praying for the appointment of a commissioner. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated 23-4-46, overruled the objection raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the comprosmise decree was in the nature of a final decree and directed the preparatio...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Nanda and ors. Vs. Shyamsundar Nath Suthu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Ori273
Panigrahi, J.1. The suits out of which these three appeals arise were instituted by the pltf. resp., who is the proprietor of Darpan Estate, a permanently settled estate in the Dist. of Cuttack, for recovery of mutation fees from the applts. who are transferees of ryoti holdings within the estate. The suits were instituted in the Ct. of the Rent Suit Officer in Rent suits Nos. 729 & 786 of 1941 & 1942 (out of which the S. A. Nos.. 108 & 138 of 1944 arise) & were tried with a batch of 68 suits. Rent Suit no. 415 of 1943 out of which the S. A. No. 142 of 1944 arises was tried along with a batch of 111 suits. All these suits were instituted by the proprietor resp. under Schedule 1-B, Orissa Tenancy Act, for the recovery of mutation fees.2. The pltf's case is that the applts in S. A. 108 & S. A, 138 of 1944, who constitute one family & who are common in both the appeals, obtained by registered sale deeds, dated 5-10-1904 & 15-9-1922 respectively, certain occupancy holdings from the recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Popsing Rice Mill Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and OrissA ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Ori53; [1949]17ITR420(Orissa)
RAY, C.J. - This arises out of an application made to this Court, under sub-section (3) of Section 66, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, complaining against the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal decision dated November 9, 1948, that the assessee application, under Section 66(1), to the Tribunal to refer a question of law said to arise out of its order dated November 19, 1947, was time-barred by 3 days, and that the Tribunal has no powers to condone the delay. The circumstances in which the case arises are as follows :-The assessee was served with notice of an order under sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the Act on December 4, 1947. He having intended to require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court a question of law arising out of such order within 60-days of the date of service of the notice of the order made a deposit of Rs. 100 in the Cuttack Treasury on February 2, 1948, being 60th day from the date of such service, by Chalan No. 7; that very day he had sent an applicati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›