Orissa Court October 1955 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.
Sumi Debi Vs. Pranakrushna Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-1955
Reported in: 22(1956)CLT293
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the Judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, reversing the decision of the learned First Munsif of Cuttack decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition of 6 annas interest in Ka schedule property and 8 annas interest in Kha schedule property and for separate possession.2. The case of the plaintiff is that Nityananda and Raghu were brothers; that the plaintiff is the daughter of Nityananda and the defendant is the son of Raghu; that Gandharba, son of Nityananda died issueless leaving a widow Hemalata since deceased; that Nityananda and Raghu were separate in status though the properties had not been divided by metes and bounds; that the defendant and Nityananda were possessing a 10 annas and a 6 annas share in Ka schedule property and 8 annas share each in kha schedule property; that thereafter Gandharba jointly possessed the properties in respective shares along with the defendant; and that the ...
Dharnidhar Sahu and ors. Vs. Bhagirathi Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori89; 22(1956)CLT11
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of their right to receive the surface water within the limits of village Kankili and flowing from Landabir, Brahmandei Khol and Amba Khol hills lying to the south of a tank known as 'Parana Bandh' belonging to the plaintiffs and measuring 13 acres 62 decimals in Khata No. 34 of Mouza Patharkumbha in Dhenkanal district. The defendants are some of villagers who own lands which lie between the hills from which the water flows and the tank of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, these lands of the defendants are on a higher level than the tank of the plaintiffs, and water flows naturally by force of gravitation northwards towards the tank. The plaintiffs' further case is -- and this is not denied by the defendants -- that their ancestors dug a channel from the foot of the hills leading to the tank, which carried the water falling on the hills through the channel. The plaintiffs had acquired a prior right o...
Mrs. Sushila Baral Vs. John Bunyan Baral and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori56; 22(1956)CLT139
Panigrahi, C.J.1. If the facts of this case are properly appreciated the principle of law that should be applied will be easy to determine.2. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the heirs of one Shyam Sundar Baral who had two brothers Samuel and Daniel. In the year 1936 they filed a suit for partition of their share in the suit property, which consists of a dwelling house standing on plot No, 280, in Title Suit No. 332/89/57 of 1936 in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack, and obtained a decree for partition on 3-10-1936. In accordance with the decree the suit house was divided into two portions X and Y, X representing one-third share of the plaintiffs' father, and Y representing the share allotted to Samuel and Daniel Jointly.The plan attached to the plaint shows that eastern portion marked X fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the western portion Y, to Samuel and Daniel. Samuel died in the year 1944, leaving a widow, Kadambini, surviving him. Kadambini purported to convey by a sale deed. Ex-...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›