Orissa Court December 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.
Nitya Gauda Vs. Mongala Bagdefia
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori61; 19(1953)CLT92
Jagannadha Das, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant and for mesne profits. The suit-land admittedly belonged to one Gora Misra. The plaintiff claims title thereto by virtue of a sale-deed dated 19-1-44, executed in his favour by the widow of the said Gora Misra. The defendant is the cultivating tenant of the land. According to the plaintiff, he was let into possession by the vendor of the plaintiff under an unregistered lease-deed, Ex. 2 dated 10-3-41, about four years prior to the date of the suit. Since the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and his vendor, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for ejectment.The defendant's case is that he had been in cultivating possession of the suit-land for long time even under Gora Misra and that after Gora Misra's death, one Magata Misra, the adopted son of Gora Misra succeeded to the property and that though for sometime after Gora Misra's death he was paying rent to th...
Monahar Naik and anr. Vs. Brajamohan Bhoi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori239; 18(1952)CLT161
Narasimham, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants against the appellate judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Shambalpur affirming the judgment of the Munsif of Sundargarh decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for setting aside the alienation of the suit land by their father in favour of the defendants on the ground of want of necessity and for recovery of possession.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Mukteswar Bhoi of village Tildzega in Gangpur State. The suit land appertains to Khata No. 35 of the village. The revenue laws of Gangpur State did not permit the transfer of an occupancy holding by the rayat in favour of any other person. But with a view to get round this ban on such transfer the recognised practice in the State (prior to the merger) was for the transferor to apply to the State authorities for mutation of the name of the transferee in the Ruler's records. On such application a regular revenue case used to be started, enquiries made by the usual way through the loca...
Api Samal and ors. Vs. Bisi Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori83; 18(1952)CLT158
ORDERPanigrahi, J. 1. The petitioners, five in number have been convicted under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to pay varying fines. They were all put on trial for having committed the offence of rioting under Section 147, Penal Code and were convicted by the trial Court of the offence, in addition to their conviction under Section 323, Penal Code. The appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 147, Penal Code and affirmed the conviction only under Section 323, Penal Code. All the five petitioners have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- each, for each of the assault said to have been made on P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3.2. The case against them is that they committed an assault on P. W. 1, the complainant. In addition, petitioners Loka, Nanda and Gandhi have been convicted for assaulting P. W. 2 and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 40/-. Petitioner Nanda is further convicted under Section 323, Penal Code for having assaulted P. W. 3 and sentenc...
Bodo Annanda Podhano Vs. Dondo Naiko (Since Deceased) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori307; 19(1953)CLT238
Jagannadha Das, C.J.1. These three second appeals arise out of three suits which have been tried analogously and are covered by a common judgment in each of the two courts below. The plaintiff, as well as defendants 2 to 6, are the same in all the three suits, but the 1st defendant is different in each. The plaintiff is the appellant before us, while the defendants are the respondents. The common plaintiff is the brother of one Satyananda Podhan, the last male-holder of the suit property. He left him surviving (apart from the plaintiff), his widow the 2nd defendant, and the widow of his only pre-deceased son, the 3rd defendant. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 are the daughters of the third defendant.Deft. 1 in each of the cases is an alienee from defendants 2 and 6 of certain items of properties of the last male-holder under sale deeds, Exts. C, D, and E dated consecutively 4th, 5th and 6th April 1941. The plaintiff as the next reversioner of the last male-holder has brought the suits for a decl...
Jadumani Behera Vs. Jadumani Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori244
Narasimham, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the District Judge of Cuttack as a Tribunal under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, dismissing the petitioner's election petition for a declaration that he was validly elected as a Municipal Councillor in ward No. 1 of Cuttack Municipality.2. The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 was brought into force in Cuttack Municipality on 16.4.51 and elections were held under that Act and the Municipal Election Rules 1950 framed thereunder. The Municipality was divided into several wards as required by Section 12 (2) and the present dispute is in respect of the election held in ward No. 1. That ward consists of two seats, one of which was set apart as a reserved seat for members of scheduled tribes and castes (see Section 11 read with Section 12 (2) (b) ). The polling took place on the 20th of April, 1951. The petitioner, the opposite party Jadumani Sahoo, and one Naba Sethi were some of the can...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›