Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori251
Ray C.J.1. These eases arise out of two petns. presented by the self same petnr. Thangndu Varaba Naraeimhamurty, impugning the validity of two detention orders, one, dated, 8-11-1950 & another, dated, 26-11-1950. The second order replaced the first. Except foe some verbal alterations, the orders are the same in all essential particulars. By the time the first Misc. case was filed, the second order of 26th November had not been passed. Therefore, the petnr. thought it appropriate that he should impugn the second order, virtually the order authorising the detention, by another petn. The latter is registered as Misc. case No. 170. At its admission for hearing, it was directed to be heard along with the previous case, Or. Misc. Case no. 158 of 1950.2. The petnr. has been directed to be detained since 8-11-1950, till 7-2-1951, for a period of three months. The detention order has been passed under the provisions of sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, Preventive Detenti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori212; 18(1952)CLT71
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These two connected appeals arise out of the same judgment. The two plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that their interest in the plaint schedule property has not passed to the defendant by virtue of his Court auction-purchaser of the property in Execution Case No. 218 of 1941 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuttack. That sale was in execution of a decree obtained by the defendant against the father and the two adult brothers of the two plaintiff's, on the basis of a pronote executed by the father. The case of the plaintiffs is that not being parties to the decree which resulted in the Court auction-sale their interest did not pass to the defendant, decree-holder, auction-purchaser. The suit does not raise any question that the debt on which the decree was obtained was not one binding on the members of the family or that it was a debt of the father vitiated by illegality or immorality. The only question therefore that was raised in this litig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori168
Ray, C.J.1. I have had. the opportunity a privilege of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Narasimham, J. I am in entire agreement with him as to the answers proposed therein & associate myself with all the reasons adduced in support thereof. I also agree with the order of conviction & sentences proposed.2. In view, however, of the practical importance of the question posed to standardisation & stabilisation of this branch of law in this State, I propose to add, as given below, some further reasons for my agreement with him. I have, since, seen the judgment proposed by my learned brother Das, J. He agrees with answers proposed. He, however, has added some further reasons not for the purpose of rein, forcing the correctness of the answers but for a different purpose. It seems he should approach the question with a leaning towards admissibility of a confession as a rule leaving it to the accused to be bound thereby to establish the exception by proof of circumstances that...
Tag this Judgment!