Orissa Court September 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.
Una Vigesu Patro Vs. Vysyaraju Somayya Raju
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Ori62; 18(1952)CLT54
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor in proceedings arising out of the execution of a mortgage decree. The respondent obtained the final mortgage decree on 16-9-1941 and applied for execution in E. P. nO. 225 of 1941. While that execution petition was pending the judgment-debtor applied to the Insolvency Court for being adjudged an insolvent, on 10 12.42, in 1. p. 3 of 1942, and he was actually declared in solvent on 3 7-43, After the insolvency application was filed and before the judgment-debtor was declared insolvent the decree-holder on 9-1-43, got his execution petition dismissed and took no further proceedinga in execution during the pendency of the insolvency petition. On 9-2-46 the insolvent got a discharge and the respondent decree holder once again applied for execution of his mortgage decree in E. P. 43 of 1947 filed on 3.2.47. It will be seen that this application is beyond three years of the dismissal of the prior execution petition which was on 9 ...
Mst. Nilabati Vs. Mst. Sukurta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori237; 18(1952)CLT271
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a compromise decree. The compromise decree was in a suit for partition, brought by the junior widow of one Bhagirathi Patel, the late Gountia of the village Laikera against the senior widow of the said Bhagirathi Patel. She claimed partition of various items of land set out in Schedule A attached to the plaint. She claimed in the first instance, eight annas share in all the items. It would appear that item (1) of Schedule A as stated in the schedule itself is a sixteen annas protected Thekadari Gountia share of mouza Laikera with Sir lands and other appurtenant rights thereto, covering a total extent of 194.99 acres. The defendant-widow is the Gountia who has succeeded to the Thekadari right. The plaint itself recognises the likelihood of this item (1) of Schedule A being held not to be partible and hence prayed in the alternative that in case this item is held to be not partible, she may be granted maintenance out of that property...
Bimaleswar Rout and anr. Vs. Chandrasekhar Dhurva
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Ori91; 18(1952)CLT104
Panigrahi, J. 1. In this appeal we are asked to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, who held that the lands, sought to be attached by the appellants, are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained by them. The respondent is the judgment debtor against whom there are two decrees for money. The decree-holders attached some lands measuring about 3 1/2 acres in extent which are admittedly 'bhogra' lands of the gountia of the village. The judgment-debtor has leasehold interest in them, created by a document dated 15-1-1901. The document itself is not produced and all the information that we got regarding the interest held by the judgment-debtor is from the remarks column of the Khatian, Ext. 1 which says that Shyama Dhuruva, father of the judgment-debtor, was in possession of these lands under a document dated 15-1-1901, on payment of a salami of Rs. 120/- and that he was paying a malguzari of Rs. 4-0-0. The learned Munsif held, relying on a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›