Orissa Court July 1953 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.
Artatran Alekhagadi Brahma and ors. Vs. Sudersan Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Ori11
Mohapatra, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-3-48, of Sri B.K. Patra, Subordinate Judge of Puri in Title Appeal No. 10/47. Admittedly the deity (plaintiff 1) Artatran Alekhagadi Bramha is the owner of the property in dispute. Plaintiffs 2 to 19 are the villagers of the village in which the deity is situate. The suit is for a declaration that the sale deed dated 4-1-44, executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is invalid as not being for justifying necessity of the deity. The plaintiffs have prayed for confirmation of plaintiff's possession in respect of the property in suit. The plaintiffs allege that the deity is a public one and that the villagers had founded the deity and are marfatdars. For performing Sebapuja of the deity they have brought defendant 3 from mouza Benupada.According to the plaintiffs, therefore, it is the villagers who are the marfatdars of the deity and defendant 3 is merely in the position of a servant...
Balaram Panda Vs. Gopinath Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Ori44; 20(1954)CLT162
Narasimham, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Cuttack ana dismissing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 3,393/8/- as agent's commission from defendant 1 who is the Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd.2. On 27-8-1942 the Maharaja of Parlakhemedi, one of the premier zamindars of Orissa, signed a proposal form (Ex. J.) for insuring his life with the Lakshmi Insurance Company for a sum of one lakh of rupees. The proposal was in due course accepted by the Company & he paid the first annual premium amounting to Rs. 9,024/14/-. The commission due to the agent oh this first premium, according to the terms of contract between the Company and its agent was Rs. 3,393/8/-. The plaintiff was one of the insurance agents of the Company and he claimed the commission alleging that the business was secured through his agency. The nominal Chief Agent of the Company at Cuttack in August, 1942 was defendan...
Smt. Haramani and anr. Vs. Dinabandhu Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Ori54; 19(1953)CLT387
Narasimham, J.1. This second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts declaring the plaintiff's title to the disputed property and directing that he should recover possession of the same from defendants 1 and 2. The following pedigree will be helpful in understanding this litigation. KANGALI ___________|____________ | | Lokanath Jagannath | | (Untraced) ______|_______ | | | |Arta (dead) Krupasindhu DinalandhuDula (D.3) (Died in 1939) (Plaintiff)Defendants 1 and 2 are alienees from defendant 3.2. The plaintiffs case was that the family remained joint, that Arta died sometime in 1920, that Krupasindhu died in 1939 issueless, his wife having predeceased him, and that the entire joint family property devolved on the plaintiff by survivorship. Defendant 3 being the widow of a deceased coparcener was entitled only to maintenance and that the Kabala executed by her in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 23-2-40 in respect of the joint family propert...
Sakhigopal Cocoanut Growers Co-operative Society Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Ori334; 19(1953)CLT357
Narasimham, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Puri, directing the petitioner to pay sales tax in respect of the sales of cocoanuts valued at Rs. 3,291/12/- to certain firms in Raipur Madhya Pradesh) and Manbhum (Bihar). The petitioner is a Co-operative Society of cocoanut growers carrying on its business at Sakhigopal in the district of Puri. The admitted facts are as follows : 2. The petitioner collected cocoanuts from various persons in Orissa and sold them to several dealers in Raipur and Manbhum. The purchasing firms placed orders with the petitioner and also paid some money in advance. On receipt of such orders, the petitioner indented for railway wagons, loaded them with cocoanuts and booked them by rail to Raipur and Manbhum and sent the Railway Receipts to the purchasing firms either through bank or through V.P.P. The purchasing firms obtained custody of the Railway Receipts on payment of the full price in...
Neelamoni Sahu Vs. Khetrabasi Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Ori37; 19(1953)CLT362
Mohapatra, J. 1 This First Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 27-4-1948 of Sri R.C. Misra, Subordinate Judge of Berhampur,and is brought by the creditor (defendant 1), theCourt having allowed relief under the provisions of Section 10, Orissa Money-Lenders Act in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant 3 (Ghanosyamo Sahu) was the original debtor along with one Bada Khetrabasi. Plaintiff 2 Raghunath and defendant 4 Neelakantha Sahu are the sons of defendant 3. Plaintiff 1 Khetrabasi is the brother of the said Ghanosyamo. Baba Khetrabasi was not a member of the family, but a partner in business with them. Padma Sahuani (plaintiff 3) is the widow of deceased Bada Khetrabasi. The said Bada Khetrabasi and defendant 3 executed a promissory note of Rs. 4000/- (Ext. 2) in favour of defendant 1 on 19-4-1931, the note bearing interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Thereafter the executants used to make occasional payments and also used to borrow further sums from time to time. The bigge...
Dandapani Gouda Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Ori329
Panigrahi, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ for quashing the order of suspension passed by the opposite party against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a probationary Sub-Registrar appointed by the State Government under Section 7, Registration Act. He joined his duties on 26-11-1947 and was working as Sub-Registrar at Patrapur from 14-5-48. By an order dated 27-6-51 of the District Registrar he was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct. The DistrictRegistrar reported the same to the State Govern-merit who passed orders on 2-8-52 approving of the action of the District Registrar in suspending the petitioner and allowed him to draw the subsistence allowance according to rules, pending enquiry into his conduct.3. The affidavit filed by the opposite party discloses that there were a number of complaints against the petitioner by the villagers of Patrapur about his own behaviour in his official capacity. In particular it wa...
Balabhadra Misra Vs. Srimati Nirmala Sundari Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Ori23; 19(1953)CLT402
Narasimham J. 1. 'Touzi' No. 2717/3 of Cuttack Collectorate, bearing a 'Sadarzama' of Rs. 2, 701/3/-, originally belonged to Gajarajpur Choudhuries represented by defendants 3 to 8 in this litigation. In that 'touzi' were included two villages known as Korkar and Erada bearing a 'Sadarzama' of Rs. 846/-. The said two villages had been previously mortgaged by the Choudhuries with Sri M.S. Rao, an Advocate of Cuttack. On 2-3-40 the Choudhuries registred a 'Kabala' (Ext. 6-a) purporting to convey their-entire interest in the said two villages in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,205/--On the same day the said vendors registered another sale deed (Ext. 6) transferring to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 975/- their right to recover arrear rental in the said two 'mouzas' In the second sale-deed (Ext. 6) it was stated that the vendors had transferred their proprietary interest in the two villages to the plaintiff & that they were, therefore, transferring their right to recov...
Nirakar Barik and ors. Vs. Superintendent, Sambalpur Jail
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Ori336; 19(1953)CLT351
Narasimham, J. 1. This revision petition is against, the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for contravention of Clauses 37(9) and 39(2) of the Grissa Security Prisoners (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1950. and the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- each passed by the Subdivi-sional Magistrate of Sambalpur. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners at all material times were under detention in Sambalpur Jail having been detained under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950). They submitted some representations to the Government for redress of certain alkged grievances of theirs on 2-7-50 and when these grievances were not redressed they started hunger-strike on 4-7-50 and continued to be on such hunger-strike till 7-8-50. The Superintendent of Jail then stopped their interviews and subsequently filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Sambalpur for their prosecution for co...
Biranchi Narayan Thakur and anr. Vs. Biranchi Narayan Thakur
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Ori333; 19(1953)CLT346
Mohapatra, J. 1. This is the defendants Second Appeal against the confirming judgment dated 9-1-1948, of Shri C. C. Coari, District Judge of Cuttack, arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for setting aside a 'SEBA SAMABPANA PATRA' (a deed of transfer in respect of Marfatdari rights) Ex. A dated 16-11-1940, executed by the plaintiff himself in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who are admittedly the co-marfatdars. Exhibit A purports to be in respect of the eight annas share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also claims eight annas share in the marfatdari rights in the suit. 2. Both the Courts below, after fully discussing this position, have come to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled to only two annas eight pies interest instead of eight annas. There being no cross-appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, the position is final that if the plaintiff gets a decree, he is only entitled to two annas eight pies. 3. One of the main grounds of the plaintiff to set aside the af...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›