Orissa Court February 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.
Pratap Kishore and anr. Vs. Gyanendranath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Ori313
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a pltf.'s second appeal against the judgment of Sri C. C. Coari, Dist. J. Cuttack, affirming the judgment of Sri G. C. De, Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in O.S. No. 25 of 1938,2. Pltf. 1 is the son of one Bhagat Charan Mohanty who was impleaded as deft, a in the suit but was transposed as pltf. 2 on 9-6-40 when the trial was opened. The first pltf. who was a minor-raised the suit through his next friend, Suriyamoni Dei, said to be his father's sister, for a declaration that deft. 1 Gyanendranath Mohanty, is not the adopted son of Nrusingbo Charan Mahanty, the deceased uncle of pltf 2 of pltf. 2. He alleged that Nrusingho Oharan Mohanty had married Pramila Sundari the sister of Gyanendraca h in 1921; that on account of this relationship pltf. S was looking upon Babu Lakshmimdhar Mohanty, the natural father of deft. 1 as 'Murabi' & that Lakshtnidhar Babu had a commanding influence over pltf. a. It was further alleged that pltf. 2, Bhagati Chacan, was subject t...
Sudarsan Das and ors. Vs. Bhaju Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori165; 17(1951)CLT209
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a simple suit in ejectment filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, for recovery of possession of the disputed lands situated in Barpalli, in Sambalpur District, from the defendants who are described as 'sub-tenants' under the C. P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs' claimed the right to eject the defendants, as the latter were in arrears of rent due for the years 1942-43 and 1943-44 at Rs. 21/- a year. It is not denied that the defendants are recorded as 'subtenants' in the successive Settlements. But the claim made on 'their behalf is that they have acquired a permanent occupancy right in the disputed lands by reason of their long occupation extending; for over fifty years, at a uniform rent of Rs. 10/- and that they, were not liable to be evicted. The Trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove their case of permanent tenancy and granted a decree in ejectment to the plaintiffs, subject, however, to the payment of compensation in respect of...
Antarijami Khadanga Vs. Ketaki Debi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori173
Ray, C.J. 1. This case involves certain complicated questions of law. The facts, however, are very simple, namely that the parties before us made a reference to arbitration for partition of certain properties which were joint, as between them. The sole arbitrator gave an award which was later registered The opposite party No. 1 (Ketaki Devi), deriving her interest from one of the parties to the arbitration, namely, Somanath Khadanga, made an application to the Court below under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') in order to cause the award to be filed in Court. The award was filed by the arbitrator. Out of the three parties to the arbitration proceeding, only two, namely, the petitioner before us and the opposite party No. 1 preferred objections to the validity or sufficiency of the award. Later, Ketaki Devi withdrew her objection and went on with the proceeding for filing the award and passing a decree thereon. The present petitioner was notifie...
Radhi Bewa and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Ori378
Narasimham, J.1. This reference to the special Bench was necessitated in consequence of a difference of opinion between my lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Das who first heard the appeal as a Division Bench.2. The essential facts have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Das and it is unnecessary to repeat them at length. Appellant Radhi Bewa (who was defendant No. 2 in the original suit) is the widow of one Bairagi who died sometime in 1932 or 1934. Respondent Bhagawan (plaintiff no. 1) is the own brother of Batragi and respondents Brundaban and Hrudanand (plaintiffs 2 and 3) are the sons of another brother of Bhagawan and Bairagi named Natha who is dead. There was another brother of Bhagawan named Bharat who died leaving a widow named Keluni (defendant no. 1) and a daughter (defendant no 3.) They were also parties to the litigation in the early stages and it appears that they eventually compromised with the plaintiffs. The whole case p...
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and anr. Vs. Bhagaban Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Ori255
Panigrahi, J.1. The point debated in this appeal is whether the properties in dispute are the absolute Devottar of the Deity Jagannath Mahaprabhu, pitf. l in the suit, or whether they are properties merely charged with service to the said Deity. Pltfs. 2 & 3, defts. 1 & 2, defts. 11, 12, 13 & 14 constitute members of a family whose common ancestor was one Bishuu Charan Das. These descendants of Bishnu Charan are described as marfatdars of the Deity, Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, & the suit properties have been described as Amrita Manhi of the said Deity who is pltf. l. The Settlement Records show that ever since the time of the Provincial settlement the suit properties, along with some other properties, were in the possession of the members of Bishnu Charan's family. They have also been accessively recorded in the three Settlement Registers as Amrita Manhi of Lord Jagannath. In the last Settlement, however, the marfatdars have been recorded as being in possession o5 seperate plots & it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›