Orissa Court February 1954 Judgments
Jagannath Patnaik Vs. Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori241; 20(1954)CLT505
Narasimham, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing his suit for recovery of damages for breach of contract.2. The defendant is the present proprietor of an impartible estate known as Killa Sukinda situate in Cuttack district. The previous proprietor of the said estate was one Sri Krutibas Bhupati Harichandan Mohapatra who died on 10-12-43 and was succeeded by the defendant who is his son's son. The defendant's father predeceased his father. The plaintiff is an experienced Revenue Officer who has served in the former States of Orissa in various capacities for several years. He had also served as a Manager of Sukinda estate for some time prior to 1938 and had given full satisfaction to the then proprietor. From 1938 to the 1st quarter of 1941 he was employed in Talcher State as Sadar Sub-divisional Officer. The proprietor of Sukinda estate was however anxious to utilise his services in his estate and on 3-12-40 he ...
Tag this Judgment!Dolgovind Mahapatra and anr. Vs. Anathbandhu Naik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori244
Mohapatra, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits heard together in the trial Court and one judgment of the trial Court cover both the suits. They were heard together before the lower appellate Court, who, however, passed two judgments. Both the appeals would be covered by the present judgment of ours.2. SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 1949: This appeal arises out of O. S. No. 12/543 of 1947/45 wherein the present appellant Dolgovind Mahapatra is the only defendant. The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of his title and for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit properties described in two schedules Ka and Kha consisting of 16 items of property each of the schedules containing 8 items.The main allegation of the plaintiff is that the properties in suit really belonged to him even though they stand in the name of the defendant. Ka schedule properties are the subject matter of the private sales and Kha schedule properties were acquired in court sales. All these items of...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Municipality of Balasore Vs. Mahammad Abdul Sattar Khan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori218
Mohapatka, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the defendant Municipality of Balasore) against the confirming judgment of Sri T. V. Rao, Subordinate Judge of Balasore, dated 31-10-1949. The plaintiff is a resident of Balasore Town occupying Holding No. 5 in Ward E together with Holdings No. 256 of Motiganj and No. 5 of Daftary Sahi. He has been assessed to pay a personal tax of Rs. 9/7/- per quarter. The only contention of the plaintiff is that the assessment is ultra vires inasmuch as the tax has been fixed on a consideration of his income from properties outside the jurisdiction of the Balasore Municipality. The plaintiff admits that in fact he possesses 40 acres of land but that is in Chandipur which is admittedly outside the municipal jurisdiction.2. The contention of the defendant-appellant is that the assessment is legal and in accordance with the provisions of Section 82, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. The relevant provisions of law are contained in Section 82, Clause (1), Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Municipality of Balasore Vs. Moulvi Mahammad Abdul Sattar Kh ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori224; 20(1954)CLT333
Mohapatra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant --Municipality of Balasore -- against the confirming judgment dated 17-11-1949, of Sri T.V. Rao, Subordinate Judge of Balasore, arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the enhancement of the municipal tax is ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff, who is a Commissioner of the Balasore Municipality, is a resident of the Balasore Town and is in occupation of Holding No. 4 in Ward IV, that is, the Holding in question. He was assessed to pay a tax of Re. 1-8-0 per quarter in respect of this Holding in the General Assessment which had taken place in the year 1938. This tax, however, was enhanced to Rs. 9/7/- per quarter by the Resolution, dated 27-8-1945, of the Balasore Municipality affirming the proceedings of the Finance Sub-Committee dated 10-8-1945.The contention on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent is that the tax which was assessed in the General Assessment of the year 1938 can be...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Adilakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori167; 20(1954)CLT446
Narasimham, J.1. This is a proceeding for contempt of Court initiated on the report of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur who alleged that the three members of the opposite party committed contempt of his Court by resisting a Receiver appointed by him (Sri Dinabandhu Das) in Title Suit No. 29 of 1951 in taking possession and managing some of the property involved in that suit situated in Village Pundi and its vicinity.2. Opposite Party No. 1 V. Adilakshmi is the wife of opposite party No. 2 V. V. Rama Rao and opposite party No. 3 V.V. Venkateswara Rao is their second son. The father of V. V. Rama Rao was one V. Kameswar Rao who was a rich influential & highly respected man of his time. He died sometime in 1949 leaving considerable immovable property situate partly in Orissa State and partly in village Pundi and other villages in Vizagapatnara district of Madras State. He left a second som named V. B. Narayan Rao and a widow named V. Mahalakshmi Amma.The said lady instituted Title Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. V. Adilakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ988
Narasimham, J.1. This is a proceeding for contempt of Court initiated on the report of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur who alleged that the three members of the opposite party committed contempt of his Court by resisting a Receiver appointed by him (Sri Dinabandhu Das) in Title Suit No. 29 of 1951 in taking possession and managing some of the property involved in that suit situated in Village Pundi and its vicinity.2. Opposite Party No. 1 V. Adilakshmi is the wife of opposite party No. 2 V. V. Rama Rao and opposite party No. 3 V. V. Venkateswara Rao is their second son. The father of V. V. Rama Rao was one V. Kameswar Rao who was a rich influential & highly respected man of his time. He died sometime ia 1949 leaving considerable immovable property situate partly in Orissa State and partly in village Pundi and other villages in Vizagapatnam district of Madras State. He left a second son named V. B. Narayan Rao and a widow named V. Mahalakshmi Amma.The said lady instituted Title Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Kar and anr. Vs. H.K. Mahatab
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori191; 20(1954)CLT682
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C., against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Cut-tack, calling upon the defendants in a suit for defamation to begin their case. The plaintiff opposite party filed the suit for defamation claiming Rs. 1 lakh as damages, for alleged libel on his reputation caused by certain writings in the 'Matrubhumi' of which the defendants are the Editor and the Publisher.The defendants' case is that these publications do not constitute libel; they also plead, in the alternative, fair comment, privilege and justification by truth.These being the allegations and the counter-allegations, the trial Court framed issue No. 4 as follows: 'Is the plaintiff entitled to recover damages from the defendants; if so how much and from whom?'Sometime later, on an application made by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge framed some additional issues. Issues No. 4 and 5 as thus framed read as follows: '4. Whether the articles referred to i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›