Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori116
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal in a suit for recovery of Mustajarj rent. According to the plaintiff, the defendants took a Mustajari lease for collecting rents from the tenantsfor the Fasli 1353 and agreed to pay a certain sum, namely, Rs. 14/3/12/11. They have not respected the contract. Hence the suit. 2. The defence is that there was no such lease nor did they make any collections. On the contrary, they state that the estate-holder himself made khas collections for certain period of the suit land. Both the Courts below have come to a finding that, in fact, there was a lease though in law there was not. The learned Munsif came to a very clear finding that after the execution of the lease, there was given delivery of possession to the defendants who, in pursuance thereof, entered upon the tenure and made collections. The plaintiff, however, adduced no evidence to show what, was the amount collected by them. 3. The following questions of law arose out of the issues joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori1; 18(1952)CLT188
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The appellants herein who are 23 in number have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj under sections 148 and 395 of I.P.C. and each of them sentenced to R.I. for two years and 5 years respectively in respect of the two offences, sentences to run concurrently, 35 persons were originally charged, three of whom died during the pendency of the trial and nine others have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. This case arose out of the Adibasi disturbances in the district of Mayurbhanj which followed on the integration of the Mayurbhanj State with Orissa. There was a section of the Adibasis who were opposed to integration with Orissa and wanted integration with Bihar. There was consequent agitation for merger with Bihar by this section with the help of Adibasis of Bihar. In a short time this agitation took a serious turn. There were uprisings which assumed serious and violent forms in the early part of February, 1949. To meet the situation, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1953Ori81; 18(1952)CLT40
Narasimham, J. 1. This revision is against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ganjam-Nayagarh maintaining the convictions of the petitioners under Section 147, I.P.C., and the sentence of four months rigorous imprisonment passed by a 1st Class Magistrate of Khurda. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further maintained the order under Section 106, Cr. P. C., passed by the Magistrate directing the petitioners to execute bonds for Rs. 500/- each with two sureties of like amount for maintaining peace for a period of two years.2. It is unchallenged that in 1947 acute party factions were prevailing between some residents of village Chasangar on the one hand and those of Mangalpur on the other in Banpur thana of Puri District. Several litigations, civil and criminal were fought out between the two factions and the occurrence out of which the present revision has arisen is said to have taken place in consequence of this bitter enmity. All the petitioners exce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori83
ORDERRay, C.J. 1. The petitioner (Puma Chandra Mandal) has been convicted, along with certain others, not before me, under s. 6 of the Mayurbhanj Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948, (XI of 1948), for having contravened the Export of Rice and Paddy Prohibition Order, 1942, which was ordered to remain in force, as if passed or made under it, in pursuance of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act. 2. The question, posed in the revision, is whether, on the date (the 11th February, 1949) the alleged contravention of the order had occurred, there was any law in force penalising the same as an offence, the Mayurahanj Act XI of 1948 having beencontended to have been repealed. To arrive at a solution, a peep into the history of the integration and its reaction on the field of law is unavoidable. 3. On 1st January, 1949, Mayurbhanj State was integrated with the State of Orissa. On that day, the Government of Orissa issued a Notification No. 2-A, publishing an order made in exercise of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori73; 18(1952)CLT19
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of one Sadhu Charan Panigrahi, who was charged under Section 161/116, Penal Code, At the trial he was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and sentenced to undergo Rule 1. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him and hence this appeal. 2. The case against the respondent is as follows: He was the authorised agent of the wife of one of the younger brothers of the Raja of Dhenkanal. On her behalf, he presented a sale-deed, Ex. I, for registration on 18-6-1949 to the Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal. That remained without being registered until 2-7-1949 for one reason or other to be stated presently. It is said that on the morning of 2-7-1949, the respondent' went to the house of the Sub Registrar, had some general gossip with him, and at a time when he found him alone, offered some currency notes to him which he refused. It is said that thereafter the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!