Orissa Court March 1954 Judgments
Mukunda Pradhan and anr. Vs. Krupasindhu Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori202
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting point which has led to some divergence of opinion. The plaintiff-respondent purchased two plots No. 1227 and No. 1712, and brought a suit O. S. No. 298 of 1943 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif, Cuttack, for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants who had trespassed upon the suit lauds. In that suit he had prayed for subsequent mesne profits till recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte and the decree directed that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the disputed properties, but contained no directions with regard to the claim for future mesne profits. In execution of the decree the plaintiff took delivery of possession of the disputed plots through Court, on 7-8-1946 and on 31-1-1947. Thereafter, he filed another suit for mesne profits, from the date of institution of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. The defendants contended that the second suit was barred under Order 2, Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Basu Behera Vs. Dombaru Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori223; 20(1954)CLT440
ORDERPanigrahi, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 115, Civil P. C., calling in question the correctness of an, order passed by the Munsif, Berhampur, in Title Suit No. 224 of 1945. That suit was filed by opposite parties 1 to 4 for partition and separate possession of certain properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants. A preliminary decree was passed for partition of the suit properties. A claim put in by the plaintiff to have an account taken of the collections made by the defendant-petitioner out of the fishery is still pending. A commissioner has been appointed to go into the account and his report is awaited. The plaintiff made an application to the court for ascertaining the mesne profits in respect of the share allotted to him from the date of institution of the suit, and the learned Munsif, by his order dated 20-9-1952, which is now under challenge, directed the commissioner to ascertain the mesne profits from the date of institution upto the date of the orde...
Tag this Judgment!H. Naik, Official Liquidator, Puri Bank Ltd. Vs. Kanhu Charan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori186; 20(1954)CLT417; [1954]24CompCas392(Orissa)
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This is a reference by the Official Liquidator of Puri Bank (under liquidation) for a direction from this Court as to whether under Sections 18 and 19, Orissa Estates Abolition Act (Orissa Act 1 of 1952) he should file a claim on behalf of the Bank before the claims Officer for determination of the amount payable to the Bank out of the total compensation money due to the judgment-debtor whose estate has already vested in the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The Advocate General appeared on behalf of the Government to oppose the reference. But none appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtor though notice was served on him.2. The Puri Bank (which is now under liquidation) was the mortgagee of the proprietary interest of the judgment-debtor in village Barhat Trilochanpur. In M. S. No. 19 of 1951 filed by the Official Liquidator, this Court passed a preliminary mortgage decree on 8-2-1952 and made it final on the 20th January, 1953 an...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Bhavan Narayan Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori204
Mohapatra, J.1. This civil revision is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur allowing defendant No. 4 to be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff in Title Suit No. 29 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, The original plaintiff who died on 22-11-1951 was the widow of late Varada Kameshwar Rao Naidu Garu. The first defendant Varada Vizaya Rama Rao is the first son of the said Kameswar Rao & the fourth defendant Varada Bhavan Narayan Rao is his second son. Defendants 2 and 3 (Varada Venkatakameswar Rao & Varada Venkateswar Rao) are the two sons of defendant No. 1, The widow of Kameswar Rao (the plaintiff, Varada Mahalakshmi Amma) brought this suit on 7th May, 1951 on the following allegations :'The joint family consisting of the father, the two sons (defendants 1 and 4), the two grandsons (defendants 2 and 3) and the widow (the plaintiff) owned extensive properties. Kameswar Rao having felt that he could no longer continu...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamananda Mohapatra Vs. Gopal Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori222; 20(1954)CLT436
Panigrahi, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of three acres of land in Khata nos. 39 and 51 of village Sadeipur. The plaintiff's case is that he purchased the suit property in execution of a money decree against defendant No. 4 on. 21-1-1935 in M. S. No. 487 of 1927 and obtained delivery of possession through court on 15-8-1936. It is said that the property had been attached before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contesting defendant No. 1 claims to have purchased the same property at an execution sale held at the instance of the landlords, who are defendants 2 and 3 and had obtained a rent decree. The main contest between the parties therefore is confined to the question as to who has got priority of title as between the two competing court sales.2. Admittedly Defendant No. 1's purchase was on 30-5-1934 while the plaintiff's purchase was on 21-1-1935. Both the Courts below have...
Tag this Judgment!Patto Padhanuni and anr. Vs. Bhikari Padhano
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori211; 20(1954)CLT633
Panigrahi, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by one Bhikari Padhano who claimed to be the reversioner to the estate of one Krishna Padhano. The first defendant, Patto Padhanuni is the widow of the deceased Krishna. The plaintiff's case was that his father and the father of the deceased Krishna were brothers and that Krishna died leaving the first defendant as his only surviving heir. The second defendant was put up as having been adopted to Krishna and a formal deed of adoption, dated 6-8-1947 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second. The plaintiff impugned this as a collusive document and as such challenges the title of the second defendant to succeed to the estate of the deceased Krishna. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration that the adoption should be declared invalid and that the plaintiff, the next heir, to succeed to the properties left by Krishna.2. The first defendant contested the suit and averred that her deceased husband...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkataratnam Patro Vs. Fatima Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Ori48; 20(1954)CLT397
Panigrahi, C.J. 1. The facts involved in this dispute are not In controversy. The plaintiff, Fatima Bibi obtained a decree for partition in O. S. 445 of 35 on the file of the District Munsif, Aska and sought delivery of possession in execution of the partition decree. Item 'H' is a house which had been mortgaged by the plaintiff's brother, Usman, to Sital Prasad, the husband of defendant No. I by a mortgage dated 31-11-1925. Sital Prasad filed a suit in O. S. 625 of 1935 to enforce his mortgage and a final decree in that suit was passed on 25-11-1938. Item 'H' was put to sale subsequently, and purchased by the mortgagee on 5-4-1941 and delivered to him through Court on 6-3-1942. It is admitted, that neither was the mortgagee a party to the partition decree obtained by the plaintiff, nor was the plaintiff made a party in the subsequent mortgage suit filed by Sital Prasad. When the plaintiff, went to take delivery of possession of the house she was resisted by Sital Prasad. Defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Subarna Sunami and ors. Vs. Kartika Kudei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori183; 20(1954)CLT400
ORDERPanigrahi, C.J.1. By an order dated 31-3-1953, the Magistrate, First Class, Bargarh, declared the possession of the disputed lands measuring 51.052 acres in favour of the first party (opposite paties herein) in M. C. No. 65/314 of 1952 -- a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, affirmed this order by his judgment dated 30-7-1953, in criminal revision Case No. 6 of 1953. It is against this order that the members of the second party have come up in revision to this Court.2. The facts leading to the dispute lie within a short compass. Akula, the father of the first party was admittedly the Thikadar -- Gaontia, & after his death Kartick the first party, is the Thikadar. The disputed lands are the sir lands of the village enjoyed by the gaontias in lieu of maintenance. The members of the second party claim to be the daughters of one Bhagat who was the cousin of Akula and was the previous gaontiar and who, it is said, died issueless over 20 years ag...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gurumurty Raju Vs. V. Narasimha Raju and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori234; 21(1955)CLT347
Narasimham, J.1. These two are analogous appeals from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in M. J. C. Nos. 109 of 1946 and 8 of 1947 setting aside an award made by an arbitrator named Sri T.N. Murthy on 15-9-1946.2. From 1941 to 1944 one Narasimha Raju took lease of a rice mill belonging to the Maharaja of Parlakimedi by a registered lease deed dated 9-12-1940 (ext. 2) and subsequently admitted several other persons as partners for the management of the mill. The shares of the partners were fixed as follows:V. Narsimha Raju...5annas.J. Appa Rao...2 1/2'Y. Krishna Murty...2'U. Samba Murty for D. Lakshman Murty...2 1/2'B. Dali Appana...1'K. Ktishna Raju...1'V. Gurumurty Raju...2' 16annas. The business of the partners consisted of milling rice and extracting oil from ground-nut. Some of the partners carried on another independent business in which their interests were as follows:V. Narsimham Raju...5annas.J. Appa Bao...4'Y. Krishna Murty...2 1/2'U. Samba Murty for D. Lakshman...
Tag this Judgment!iswar Das Vs. Abhiram Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Ori219; 20(1954)CLT515
Narasimham, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were the defendants in two suits (O. S. No. 93 of 1945 and O. S. NO. 94 Of 1945) which were heard analogously in the Court of the Munsif of Kendrapara. The plaintiff in both the suits was one Ataniram Mohanty, the respondent in these appeals. In O. S. No. 93/45 the property in dispute consists of l.OS acres of raiyati land appertaining khata No. 246. In O. S. No. 94/45 the property in dispute consists of. 22 acres appertaining khata No. 251. These khatas originally belonged to the recorded tenants Prabalad Das, Krushna Chan-dra Das, Bairagi Das & Nabani Bewa. The plaintiff-respondent Abhiram Mohanty claimed to have purchased the property from the recorded tenants by a Kabala dated 18-9-31. He, however, did not take the necessary steps prescribed in Section 31, Orissa Tenancy Act (as it stood before the amendment of 1938) lor the purpose of obtaining the consent of the landlord to the transfer and for getting his name mutated in the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›