Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori98
Panigrahi, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Plaintiffs Indramani Das and Gangadhar Das are two brothers, while plaintiff Champa Dibya is their sister-in-law. Their case is that Banaraali, father of Indramani and Gangadhar (plaintiffs 1 and 2) left three sons, Mahani, Padan and Panu. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Mahani while, plaintiff 3, Champa Dibya, is the widow of Jadu, the deceased son of Padan. Defendant 4, Nisha-mani is the widow of Panu. Defendant 4 executed a sale deed in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 on 20-4-43 conveying not only her one-third interest in respect of the properties left by her husband but also purporting to sell her one-third interest in the properties left by Hadibandhu (brother of Banamali) who died without leaving any issues. It is admitted that Hadibandhu died about 40 years ago, while Banamali died about 30 years ago.2. The Courts below came to different conclusions with regard to the question as to whether Hadibandhu died in a state of joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori64; 16(1950)CLT233
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the Purohit of the deity of Kapileswar in Chonomeri, and that he is the Guru of the Archakas of the said deity, and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rights as such Purohit and Guru. Both the plaintiff and the defendant trace their title from a common ancestor, Madhab Tripathi, who had two sons, Kapila and Harekrishna The last descendant in the male line of Harekrishna was one Dasarthi who died unmarried at a young age in or about 1927. the defendant is his sister's son. The plaintiff is the descendant of the said common ancestor Madhab Tripathi, through Kapila. His father, one Agadhu, was a daughter's son in the male line of Kapila. But it is the plaintiff's case that the said Agadhu was adopted to one Lokenath, the brother of his maternal grand-father, Jugalo, was a direct agnatic ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori205; [1950]18ITR660(Orissa)
Ray, C.J.1. Under Section 66, Income-tax Act, this Court asked the appellate Tribunal to state a case which has since been done. The questions referred to us are : '(1) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, diamissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of its incompetence, according to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, is one under Section 31 and as such appealable under S. 33 (1) of the Act, and (2) Whether such an order passed before expiry of the time either as originally fixed or later extended by competent authority for payment of the tax IB good in law.' 2. Of the two questions, the second one strictly falls within the scope of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in the event of our answer to question no. (1) being in the affirmative. When the appeal goes back to the Appellate Tribunal it will be for them to consider whether the order of extension, if any, granted by the income tax authorities was a valid order and would conduce to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori183
Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, calling upon the pltf to pay 'ad valorem' Court-fee on his plaint. The pltf filed a suit for possession of certain lands alleged to be his Sardar Inam lands. The Revenue Ct in a suit brought under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Madias Act III (3) of 1895) proceeded on the assumption that the inam consisted of the emoluments arising from the lands & left it open to the pltf to establish his right to the land itself in a civil Ct. The pltf, thereafter raised this suit for establishing his right to the land as constituting a part of his emoluments in lieu of the Sardar service & prayed for possession of the land, & in the alternative prayed for partition of the same & possession of one-sixth share. The pltf's case primarily is that the land itself constituted the inam. If however the Ct should hold that it is not so, he wants to avail himself of the alternative remedy on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori149
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. The petitioner is the transferee from the auction-purchaser at a rent sale held, on 15-7-43 of lands measuring 2.8 acres in holding No. 402 in Mouza Gopalpur. The petitioner purchased the property from the auction-purchaser on 17-5-46 and tools delivery through Court on 19-11-46. The judgment-debtor opposite party filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, read with Schedule 8, Limitation Act, for setting aside the sale. This application was made on 13-12-46. The Deputy Collector who had seizing of the case found that there were several irregularities in the service of the sale proclamation and attachment order; that the sale notice was not properly proclaimed; and that the sale proclamation and attachment order were not served in the presence of either the president or the Tahsil punchayat. In his opinion these irregularities 'kept the door wide open for fraud in this respect' and his ultimate finding is that there were gross irregularities in servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori180; 16(1950)CLT197
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Second Munsif, Cuttack refusing to apply Section 4 of the Indian Partition Act to the proceedings before him.2. The facts are briefly these. The property in question is a dwelling house belonging to four branches of a family: one-fourth share belongs to defendant No. 1, a stranger; one-fourth share belongs to defendant No. 5 in his own right; one-fourth to defendants 2, 3 and 4, and the remaining one-fourth was purchased by the wife of defendant No. 5, who filed the suit for partition in order to buy off the share of defendant No. 1. A preliminary decree was granted and before the final decree was drawn, up defendant No. 5, applied under Section 4 of the Partition Act to buy up the share of defendant No. 1, who was a stranger to the family. The learned Munsif rejected the petition on the ground that as the suit was not instituted by the stranger-transferee, section 4 of the Act did not, in terms, apply. Hence this r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori48; [1951]19ITR353(Orissa)
Ray, C.J.1. This case was heard on 22-3-1950 and its result was then communicated after close of the hearing. We reserved deliverance of our judgment incorporating the reasons.2. This is a motion by an assessee, a Hindu undivided family, invoking our jurisdiction to issue a writ requiring the Appellate Tribunal (income-tax) to state a case and to refer the same to the Court in the event of our not being satisfied of the correctness of their decision in rejecting the assessee's appeal and in refusing to state a case to this Court. For the reasons stated below, we are not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal as correct.3. The facts that constitute the background In which the correctness of the Tribunal's decision has to be considered are that one Jagannathram and his five sons E(i) Gangaram, (ii) Ramanarayan, (iii) Bhagawan, (iv) Kanhialal and (v) Surajmal constituted a joint family. The family owned extensive properties, both movables and immovables, inclusive of two business con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori11; 16(1950)CLT80
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Jaipur and dismissing the appellants-plaintiffs suit for ejeatment of the defendant-respondent horn a house in village Rebana in Jaipur sub division.2. It is an unchallenged fact that the disputed property consists of survey plot Nos. 416 and 447 having an area of .09 decimals and .04 decimals respectively and recorded in Khata No. 8 in the last settlement operations. The Khatian, however, was not exhibited in the lower Court but the statement in the plaint giving the aforesaid plot numbers, area and khata number have not been controverted in the written statement. It is also an unchallenged fact that the said two plots lie in the Basti of the village and at present there is a house standing thereon with its appurtenant Bari. It is further admitted by the parties that the previous owner of the property was one Rukuni Bewa. The plaintiffs claimed to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori196; 16(1950)CLT78
ORDERPanigrahi, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 427 and 379, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of R3. 25 each on each count. 2. The case against the petitioners is that they pulled down the walls and part of the roof of the house belonging to the complainant on and June 1948 and caused damage to the extent of RS. 20 or more, and dishonestly removed the roofing materials, The undisputed facts that emerged from the evidence are, that the complainant and the petitioners own adjoining plots of land, namely, plot NOS. 1983 and 1932 respectively; that Plot No. 1933 belongs to the complainant and there is a row of three rooms with a common roof on that plot that plot No. 1932 belongs to the petitioners, and that the disputed house is partly within that plot bounded by A, B, C, D, E, F at S as demarcated in the plan prepared by the mutation officer of Angul. The map shows that the complainant put up the house on a bit of land appertaining to plot No. 1932 belonging...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori203; 16(1950)CLT130
ORDERPanigrahi, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., passed by the Magistrate, first class, Aska, direating the petitioner to remove an encroachment made by him on a village path in village Marudi Jagannathpur. The case against the petitioner was that he put up a stone foundation for a house across a public path in survey No. 6 of the said village of Marudi Jagannathpur, and encroached upon an area of 2 (sic) of an acre and thereby caused obstruction and annoyance to the public. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a plot of homestead land on 26th June 1937 by a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) from one Ganesh Mohapatra (p. w 2) of the village. The site is described in the sale deed as 100 cubits long and 11 cubits wide, and is bounded on the east by the house of the petitioner and on the west by a 'Rajamarga Khama.' The Rajamarga Khama, as the very name implies, ig a public path which is used both as a pathway and a...
Tag this Judgment!