Orissa Court November 1951 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.
Jaganath Vs. Tirthananda Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori312
Panigrahi, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that he is the sebayat of Deity Lord Jaganath to whom the suit properties belong and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant.2. The plaintiff Mahanta Ganga Das is a chela of the late Mahanta Dhyan Das, who was the previous Mahanta of Bhaga Akahada Math situated at Puri. Mahanta Dhyan Das died on 20-6-41 and the plaintiff, claiming to have been elected on 13-7-41 by a Punch of Mahantas, to succeed the deceased Dhyan Das as Mahanta of the said Math, asserts his title to the properties which admittedly constitute an endowment of the Deity Lord Jaganath. The defendant, Mahanta Tirthananda Das, is the Mahanta of Pandu Math situated in Cuttack district and he claims to have been put in possession of the suit properties through Court, in pursuance of an execution sale held on 10-3-42. His case is that the...
Ramkrishna Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori231
Narasimham, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Revenue Commissioner (now Member, Board of Revenue) in Certificate Revision Case No. 37 of 1951-52. The material facts are as follows.2. The applicant is a contractor of the public Works. Department engaged in the business of construction of buildings, repairs of roads, and other works. The Sales Tax Officer of the 6overnment of Orissa issued a requisition to the Certificate Officer of Cuttack in September, 1949, for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 406/3/- from the applicant as arrear sales tax due for the quarters ending on 31-12-47 and 31-3-48. The Certificate Officer on receipt of that requisition started Certificate Case No. 404-M of 1949-50 and issued the usual notice under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (Act IV of 1914). The applicant thereupon filed an objection under Section 9 of that Act denying his liability to pay the said sum either i...
Liquidator of Dhabaleshwar Co-operative Society Vs. Hadibandhu Behera ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori300
Panigrahi, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondent 1 for a declaration that a contribution order passed against Mm by the appellant, as the Liquidator of the Dhabaleswar Co-operative Society, is ultra vires and illegal, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Liquidator (who was defendant 1 in the suit) from executing the same against the plaintiff.2. The allegations of the plaintiff are that he and his elder brother Lokenath Behera (defendant 5) joined the said society in June 1922 and borrowed different sums of money for financing a partnership business; that in April 1923 the partnership was dissolved and that he transferred his interest in the business to his elder brother; and that on 3-4-23 the managing committee of the society passed a resolution transferring the liability of the plaintiff to his elder brother as Karta of the family; and that accordingly he (the plaintiff) ceased to be a member of the society. The plaintiff further alleged that he had bee...
Nityananda Kanango Vs. Sm. Pala Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori120; 18(1952)CLT1
Jagannadhadas, C. J. 1. This revision comes before us as a Pull Bench on a reference under Rule 4, Chapter V of the Rules of this High Court. Under the said rule, taken with Rule 2, the point or points on which the Bench making the reference differed from a decision of a former Division Bench should be statedThe order of reference is not specific as to what is the exact point which is referred to us. But there can be no doubt, on a perusal of the said order that wnat was intended to be referred to us, is the question 'whether the ruling of the Patna High Court in 2 Cut L T 49, has been correctly decided.' It is on that footing that we deal with this reference. 2. The subject-matter of this revision is an eight-anna-share in Touzi No. 2861, which has been constituted into the separate Touzi No. 8856. The father of the petitioner before us took a mortgage of this Touzi from the then owner thereof Bayed Abdui Quyyam and another on 31-12-1930. (It may be noted that the Court below states t...
Jalumuru Kamaraju Vs. Kenguva Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori99; 18(1952)CLT207
ORDERNarasimham, J. 1. This revision is against an order under Section 145, Cr. P. C., passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Rayagada declaring the opposite party to be entitled to possession of six plots of land in village Rachavikrampur and forbidding disturbance of such possession until eviction in due course of law. A revision petition filed before the Additional Sessions Judge of Jeypore under Section 437, Cr. P. C., was unsuccessful. 2. Village Rachavikrampur had been granted as Mokhasa by the Maharaja of Jeypore in favour of an ancestor of the opposite party and the last Mokhasadar was one Sivaramaraju. Petitioner Kamaraju is his own brother. Sivaramaraju died sometime in 1942 issueless and the petitioner alleged that his own son Nilakantam had been adopted by Sivaramaraju prior to his death. His case, therefore, is that his son Nilakantam as the adopted son of Sivaramaraju continues to be the Mokhasadar of the village and as such is in possession of all the lands in that v...
Narayan Das and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori149; 19(1953)CLT127
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This revision has been referred to me under Section 429, Cr. p. C. in consequence of a difference of opinion between my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Das (as he then was) who first heard the revision as a Division Bench.2. Petitioner No. 1 Narayan Das alias Madhusudan Das Babaji came to village Saradhapur in Bonai State, proclaimed himself to be the living God 'Anantakishore', called upon the villagers to worship him & succeeded in gathering a number of disciples around him who believe in his divinity. There was a girl named Bhanumati aged about fifteen years (P. W. 7.) daughter of one Rajib Lochan Mohanti of the village, The Babaji somehow induced a belief in the girl as well as in her father & some of the co-villagers that she was 'Anantakishori' and that none else but he was fit to wed her. In consequence of this belief the girl was in due course given in marriage to him by her father and for sometime the Babaji and his wife were looked ...
Arjun Padhi Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori237; 18(1952)CLT818
Panigrahi, J.1. These are two petitions filed under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code by one Arjun Padhi who stands charged along with certain others for an offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 406/34 and 409/34, I. P. C. The case against the petitioner was started on First Information (No. 54 dated 6-5-48) and the charge sheet was filed against him and two others on 12-4-49. The trial was taken up on 7-6-49 and charge was framed on 22-12-49 by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Boudh. After framing of charge witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined and the case was posted to 11-1-51 lor adducing defence evidence. On 26-12-50 the record almirah of the Court was burnt and all the records relating to this case were destroyed. On the next day the house of the petitioner was searched and certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses, F. I. R. charge-sheet and some other papers were recovered and seized by the police. On 27-4-51 the accused filed a p...
Bharat Padhan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori142; 18(1952)CLT197
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. The three petitioners were convicted under Sections 379 and 352, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks each by the Sub-Magistrate of Kudala. On appeal, the Additional District Magistrate of Ganjam set aside the conviction under Section 352, I.P.C., but maintained the conviction under Section 379, I.P.C., and reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 10/- each.2. The prosecution case was that on the 26th of September, 1949 the three petitioners (who are brothers) cut and removed five branches of Babul trees standing on the southern ridge of the complainant's land in. village Pituapali, Police Station Kudala and in his possession. The petitioners admitted the cutting of the branches but pleaded that the trees belonged to them, haying been planted there by their father and that they acted, therefore, in exercise of their right.3. In view of the admitted cutting of the branches of the Babul trees the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›