Orissa Court April 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.
Arjuna Misra Vs. the Indian Union
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Ori235; 16(1950)CLT115
Ray, C.J.1. This is an application by the prisoner (Arjuna Misra) whose convictions under Sections 457, 380 and 461, Penal Code, have been confirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1949. The applicant invokes us to certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, in order that he may prefer an appeal against the final order of conviction and sentences in the said criminal proceeding. The pith and substance of the various contentions advanced is that, at the end of the hearing before this Court, is the background of the findings recorded therein, there does not exist any reliable evidence upon which a conviction can be safely or justly based and that, accordingly, the principles of natural justice have been violated resulting in substantial and grave injustice to the applicant.2. The applicant and one P. J. Patnaik (since acquitted by the final order of this Court in Cri. Revn. No. 73/4...
Alli Babi and ors. Vs. Krishna Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Ori250b; 16(1950)CLT147
Panigrahi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the lower Court are the appellants in this appeal. They claimed the suit-lands measuring about 139 bharanams in Aainipur, an inam village in Attagada Estate, by virtue of their long possession and, in the alternative, claimed to have acquired occupancy right in them under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. It will be enough to state in broad outline the salient facts giving rise to this claim. One Mir Ashraff was admittedly the Jahagirdar of this village of Asinipur, within the limits of which the suit lands are situate. Fateh Mohammad was his sister's son, to whom he gave his daughter, Ali Bibi in marriage. Plaintiff 1 is the widow of Fateh Mohammad, plaintiff 2 is his daughter and plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 are his sons. Plaintiffs 6, 7 and 8 are the legal representatives of plaintiff 3 who died during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint had been given by the late J...
Udayanath Mohapatra and anr. Vs. Rahas Pandiani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori10
ORDERJagannadhadas, J.1. This matter comes to ma as taxing Judge in pursuance of the order of the Bench which held that the Bench has no jurisdiction to deal with the question of deficit, relating to the appeal memorandum in the High Court. I proceed to deal with it treating the order of reference by the Registrar to the Bench as an order of reference to me as the taxing Judge by the taxing officer; the Registrar being also the taxing officer. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in the following circumstances as stated in the order of reference.'In execution of the decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father who is defendant 3, the disputed property has been sold away in court-auction at the in stance of the decree-holder, the late husband of defendant 1. The decree-holder purchased the property and also took delivery of possession through Court. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff questioned the decree and the subsequent proceedings on the gr...
Tankadhar Nag and anr. Vs. Bishnu Nag and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori8; 16(1950)CLT144
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This matter comes before us on a reference by the Registrar. The only question is as to the court-fee payable by the respondents in this appeal on the memorandum to the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and obtained a decree in the trial Court against the defendants. The defendants appealed and succeeded in the lower appellate Court. Hence the plaintiffs have come up with this second appeal and the defendants are the respondents herein.2. The suit property is 8.23 acres of land and the plaintiffs valued it for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees at Rs. 70 and paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 15 on the plaint. When the defendants appealed to the lower appellate Court, they adopted the same valuation and paid the same court-fee. The plaintiffs in their turn, did the same when they filed the second appeal in this Court. The valuation was not questioned in the Courts below and has been tacitly accepte...
Sm. Chanchal Devi and ors. Vs. Puri Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori22
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is one under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C. and relates to 62 1/2 acres of land at Dolamandap Sahi in the town of Puri with pucca and kutcha structures standing thereon. The facts leading to the suit are as follows :2. Plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant 2. Defendants 3 to 6 mortgaged the suit property along with other properties to defendant 1 the Puri Bank, by a deed of mortgage dated l0th march 1934, Ex. 6, for a sum of Rs. 25,000. The Bank obtained a decree on the mortgage and brought this property to sale in Execution case No. 1379 of l94l. The plaintiffs intervened with a claim petition on the ground that the suit property belonged to their deceased mother and not to their father defendant 2, that they are entitled to the same as the Stridhan heirs of their mother, and that their father and brothers mortgaged the suit property fraudulently without their knowledge. (It may be mentioned that under the ...
Haribunsha Singh Deo Vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Singh Deo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori265
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These appeals have been posted before this Bench for orders in connection with the payment of alleged deficit court-fees payable by the respective appellants in each of the appeals. All these appeals have been made analogous since they are against a common judgment in separate suits tried together. The alleged deficit court-fee payable is only in respect of the appeal memoranda to this Court. There is be question before us now of any deficit payable by any of the appellants in these appeals on their plaints in the trial Court.2. The question that has been raised is whether this Bench has the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. The determination of the proper court-fee payable on an appeal memorandum to the High Court is regulated by Schedule , Court-fees Act. Under that section, when a difference arises as to the court-fee payable, the question is to be determined primarily by the taxing officer of the High Court. The taxing officer under the said section may, in...
Haribansha Singh Deo Vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Singh Deo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori150; 16(1950)CLT158
Jagannadha Das, J.1. These matters come up before me as the Taxing Judge as a result of the decision of the Bench in these appeals that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Acting on the suggestion made in the order of the Bench and with a view to avoid any further delay in this long pending matter, I propose to treat the reference by the Registrar as a reference by the Taxing Officer to me, the Registrar himself being under the rules of this Court, also the Taxing Officer. These four appeals arise out of three suits which along with four other suits were filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur by various rival claimants to the Barpalli Zamindary which were all tried analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Appeal No. 45 is by the plaintiff in T. S. No. 11/49. Appeal No. 48 is by the plaintiff in T. S. No. 8/39. Both these suits were filed as mere declaratory suits and court-fee on the two appeals therefrom was filed on...
Ulla Mahapatra Vs. the King
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Ori261; 16(1950)CLT102
Panigrahi, J.1. The appellant, Ulla Mahapatra, is a boy of about twelve years of age. He has been convicted of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code for causing the death of a Dandasi boy named Ranka Naik and has been sentenced to transportation for life. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on the afternoon of 20th April 1949, the appellant Ulla was getting palm fruits plucked from a tree standing on his land. Another boy named Khallia had been engaged to cut the fruits. The appellant was gathering the fruits from the ground and carrying them to his cow-shed in a basket and he was being assisted in this work by two other boys, Bhagawan and Prahlad, It is said that Khallia got down from the tree after cutting down all the fruits from it and was eating a fruit that had fallen on the ground. At that time the deceased boy, Ranka, arrived at the spot, on his way home after a bath, accompanied by another boy friend named Nakula of the village. Ranka picked up a fruit from the ground w...
Behera Tanti Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Ori202; 16(1950)CLT141
Panigrahi, J.1. The appellant Behera Tanti was charged with the offence of having committed the murder of his wife by severing her head from the body with a 'Falsia'. He has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sandergarh-Sambalpur under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life. 2. The evidence against the appellant consists of a confessional statement; alleged to have been made by him--which is marked Ex. 4--but which was subsequently retracted, the oral evidence of P. Ws. 3 to 6 and, the circumstantial evidence relating to his conduct after the occurrence. 3. So far as Ex. 4 is concerned, the appellant appears to have stated therein that there was an altercation between him and his wife, but that he did not know what he did with her though he saw his knife stained with blood. He therefore ran to the police station where he realised that he had killed his wife. The appellant went to the police station himself, taking the Falsia with him and there the Sub-Insp...
Radhamohan Rana and ors. Vs. Gobinda Gopalananda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Ori230; 16(1950)CLT174
Ray, C.J1. The two revisions were heard together & this order will govern them. Both of them are directed against the orders of the Cts. below visiting the petnrs with some punishment for having disobeyed an order of injunction passed by the Ct under Order 39, Rule 2, C. P. C. & against the consequential order of directing the defts. to restore possession of the subject matter of dispute back to the pltf. which had been taken in violation of his order of prohibition in the order of temporary injunction.2. It is fundamental that nobody shall be proceeded against in contempt except for wilful violation of a Ct's order - be it a prohibitory or stay or injunction order - as the case may be. The circumstances of this case have to be set out in order to examine the question whether the petnrs were guilty of wilful violation. The circumstances are: (i) The opposite party, who was a trustee of Khirachora Gopinath Jiu Temple at Remuna, & the endowment thereof, was dismissed by the Hindu Religio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »