Orissa Court November 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Barju Das Vs. Krishna Chandra Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Ori104
ORDERPanigrahi, J. 1. This is a revision arising out of a decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge, Cuttack, in a suit based on what is called a blank handnote. The plaintiff is a pleader and says that he lent a sum of Rs. 150/- on a promissory note marked Ext. A which contains merely a signature with the words 'Rs. 150/-' on a one-anna stamp. The signature is denied by the defendant as a forgery and the loan also is denied.2. The plaintiff examined himself and another person, one Baidyanath Panda, who, it is said, was present at the time of the transaction. The defendant denied this and alleged that there was bitter enmity between himself and the plaintiff's uncle-in-law relating to the marriage of his daughter. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was in great hurry and so he gave his signature on a blank paper as there was not enough time to execute a formally completed handnote.3. The document has been marked and treated as a handnote. The learned Small Cause Judge has en...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Jisuk Ram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Ori105
Ray, C.J. 1. This is defendant 3's First Appeal in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The appellant is the subsequent purchaser with notice of the contract. The plaintiffs allege that defendants 1 and 2 are members of a joint family of which defendant 2, the uncle, is the manager. They on behalf of their joint family agreed on 28-6-1941, to sell properties specified in the plaint-schedule, for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. They received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in part payment of the consideration as earnest money on that very day. It was agreed, in the terms of Ex. 6 (an agreement deed, dated, the same day) that the defendants would obtain permission of the Khasmahal authorities for the sale, and, within sale deed, after proper execution, for registration, whereupon the plaintiffs would pay the balance of the consideration money, that is, Rs. 13,000/- in cash, before the Sub-Registrar. On receipt of the consideration money the defendants would makeover the registratio...
State of Orissa Vs. Siba Prasad Moda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori180; 17(1951)CLT160
Narasimham, J. 1. This revision, is by the State of Orissa for enhancement of the sentence passed on the opposite party by the Sessions Judge bf Cuttack, on appeal, in a case of attempt at bribery.2. The opposite party is a Marwari merchant of Cuttack town. On 2-9-47 Sri Narendra Kishore Mohonti (P. W. 1), a Sub-Inspector of Police (C. I. D. Enforcement), seized certain incriminating account books from the shop of one Dwarakanath Bajaj, a retail cloth dealer, and started investigation in a case of black-marketing. On the next day the opposite party who had some previous acquaintanceship with the Sub-Inspector met him in the Collectorate compound and after making general enquiries about the case against the said Bajaj requested him to drop the case. The S. I. further stated that the opposite party offered bribe to him if the case would be hushed up. Thereupon the S. I. arranged for a trap and on 5-9-47 at about 9 p. m., the opposite party fell into the trap and was caught red-handed as ...
Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. Batsa Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Ori152
Narasimham, J.1. This appeal is by defendant No. 1 the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts declaring the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 to be hereditary trustees of the temple of Sri Dahibaban Mohaprabhu located at village Kulada in Ghumsur taluq. On 20-10-44 the Commissioner, H.B.E., Orissa passed an order (Ex. 1) declaring the temple to be a non-excepted temple and thereupon the plaintiff instituted the present suit under Section 64(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939.2. It is an admitted fact that the said temple was constructed by the Raja of Ghumsur sometime before Fasli 1247(1837 AD) and some lands were also endowed for the worship and bhog of the deity Sri Dadhibaban Mohaprabhu installed in that temple. The plaintiff's case was that soon after the installation of the deity and the creation of the endowment the then Raja of Ghumsur appointed the ancestor of the plaintiff as the hereditary...
Bholanath Panigrahi Vs. Shyamsundra Bose and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori235; 17(1951)CLT85
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal against the reversing judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, directing the dismissal of the pltf's suit for ejectment & damages. The facts - which are not in dispute - are that one Bai Panigrahi, an ancestor of the pltf & defts 2 to 6 who constitute one family, purchased some lands by two registered kabalas dated 27-8-1914 & 24-7-1917 from one Burunda Nalk & his son respectively who were then the recorded tenants of those lands. The lands appertained to khata No. 249 in touzi No. 2219. As a result of the partition of the touzi the disputed plot fell in the separated touzi No. 7288 which was purchased by deft 1 at a revenue sale on 18-3-1918. In the Current Settlement the suit plots, which measure 70 decimals, were recorded in Khata No. 120 & in the remarks column the transferee's name was noted as being in possession by virtue of the two kabalas mentioned above. Deft 1 the landlord of the separated touzi brought rent suit in the year 1938 against ...
Keshab Chandra Choudhary Vs. Lokenath Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori186
Panigrahi, J.1. The point raised in this appeal relates to the correct interpretation of Schedule 1 (5), Oriasa Tenancy Act (Bihar and Oriasa Act II [2] of 1913, as amended by Orissa Act VIII [8] of 1938).2. The plaintiff purchased .60 1/2 of an acre of land out of a holding measuring 1.45 acres, in execution of a mortgage decree against defendant 2 who was the occupancy raiyat of the holding no, 189 in Touzi no. 2484 belonging to defendants 3, 4 and 5 who are co-sharer landlords, in village Tiran. The plaintiff purchased four complete plots and an undivided half share in plot no. 580 on 15-5-40 Defendants 3 and 4 filed a rent suit against defendant 2 and put up the holding to sale in execution of the decree obtained in that rent suit. Defendant 1 purchased it at court auction on l5-5-41. The plaintiff thereafter on 17-9-41, filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, praying for a declaration of his right and confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, for delivery of pos...
Krishna Chandra Misra Vs. Sushila Mitra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori105; 16(1950)CLT249
Das, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a decree for ejectment obtained by the respondent against the appellant, in respect of a house situated in the town of Cuttack. The respondent is admittedly the owner of the house. The appellant was occupying the house on a monthly tenancy under her. During the time when the House Rent Control Order of 1942 was in force, she obtained from the House Controller, an order dated 15-8 44 exempting her from the operation of B. 4 thereof. On 13-9-44, she gave the tenant a notice, requiring him to vacate the premises by 1-1044 and also calling upon him to pay up the arrear.3 of rent by then due. She filed a suit for ejectment O. S. No. 71/45 on 26-2-1945 and obtained a decree on 17-12-1945. She proceeded to execute the decree by execution case no. 230/46 filed on 30.4.1946 which was adjourned from time to time by arrangement between the parties and was ultimately dismissed for default on 7-5-1917. On 10-5-1917, the decree-holder respondent filed a f...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Bora Tataya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori153
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendant 1 is the applt in this 2nd appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment filed by the pltf against defts 1 and; 2 in respect of a homestead land, .015 acre in. extent and appertaining to plot 236 in Cuttack town. Plot 236 out of which the suit-plot has been carved out is a homestead plot in respect of which the pltfs have been recorded in the settlement records as Chandnadars. Deft 2 obtained a lease of the suit-plot from the pltfs and has been in possession thereof for a considerable period of time, for over 20 years according to the pltf, but according to deft for over 40 years. Deft 2 had admittedly erected a house on it & has been recorded in the current settlement record-of-rights as a Darhandnadar. On 30-6-45, deft 2 sold the land with the superstructure thereon to deft 1. Pltf accordingly filed the suit for ejectment against both defts 1 & 2 on 5-9-45. It is the pltf's case that deft 2 was a mere tenant-at-will under him & that he had no rig...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›