Orissa Court February 1956 Judgments
Hari Panda and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori20a; 22(1956)CLT247; 1956CriLJ1421
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. The 34 petitioners were tried by a. Second Class Magistrate of Chatrapur for offences under Sections 143 and 379, I. P. C. on the allegation that on 28-11-1952, they formed themselves Into an unlawful assembly at village Aladigam, P. S. Chatrapur with the common object of committing theft of paddy crops from survey Nos. 864, 900 and 1134 in the possession of the complainant Mangalu Panda and that in furtherance of the said common object, they also committed theft of the saidpaddy crops. They were convicted and sentenced to various amounts of fine. Their appeal to the appellate Deputy Magistrate, Chatrapur was dismissed.2. The disputed lands are 2.51 acres in extents & it is admitted that they originally belonged to one Shrimati Pandiani who was the adoptive mother of petitioner Hari Panda. In execution of a decree against Srimati Pandiani in E. P. No. 757 of 1940, one Haribondhu Palo purchased the property through the Civil Court and the sale certificate (Ext. 2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra and ors. Vs. Kulamani Chakra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori210; 21(1955)CLT199
Narasimham, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that he is the validly adopted son of one Jogi Chakra and as such entitled to Inherit all his properties. The defendants are the agnates of the said Jogi Chakra and they challenged the alleged adoption of the plaintiff by Jogi Chakra. 2. Hence, the main question for decision by both the Courts was whether the plaintiff was validly adopted by Jogi Chakra. The lower appellate Court after full discussion of the oral evidence held that the evidence was somewhat unsatisfactory and if the case had rested entirely on oral evidence, his conclusion would have been against the case of adoption. But he thought that the defendants were estopped from raising this question in view of compromise decree passed by a competent Court in O. S. No. 67 of 1946. That suit was brought by the plaintiff himself against the said Jogi Chakra for a declaratio...
Tag this Judgment!Chintamoni Padhan and ors. Vs. Paika Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori136
Panigrahi, C.J.1. The litigation giving rise to this appeal has had a chequered career. The plaintiffs own 16.67 acres of land recorded in Khata No. 32 of Mouza Santhasara within the State of Dhenkanal. These lands were being enjoyed in four separate shares plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 having one share each and the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 being the other cosharer.Sometime prior to 1930 plaintiff 1 leased out ft small portion of the holding, measuring 1.28 acres, for cultivation on Bhag. The Tahsildar of the State recommended the resumption of the entire holding on the ground that the executant had mortgaged the lands without the authority of the State, and on 26-1-1931 the Ruler of Dhenkanal ordered resumption of the entire holding. Thereafter the lands were re-settled, on 21-9-1932, with the present defendant 2 and the father of the present defendants 3, 4 and 5.By an order of the Ruler, dated 21-11-1932 their names were mutated and pattas were granted in due course. But the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuyan Shyam Sunder Mohapatra and anr. Vs. Ch. Nilakantha Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori165
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. Civil Revision No. 260 of 1949 and First Appeal No. 44 of 1951, involve common questions of fact and law and are heard together. They are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Civil Revision No. 260 of 1949 arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttak in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1949 on an application filed by the petitioners, who will be referred to hereafter as mortgagees, under Sections 151, 152 and 153, Civil P. C. for amendment of the decree and judgment passed in a suit for foreclosure.3. First Appeal No. 44/51 is against the decree and judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in Original Suit No. 9/49. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (mortgagees) for a declaration of their title to the properties described in Schedule B and for delivery of possession of the same, or in the alternative for a claim of a sum of Rs. 5922-12-0 being the value of the suit property from defendant 1.The petitioners in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1949...
Tag this Judgment!Harishankar Lath and ors. Vs. General Merchants Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori186
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. The judgment-debtors in an execution proceeding filed this appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur dismissing their objections to the execution of the decree.2. The order appealed against was passed in two miscellaneous cases arising out of the execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder, The General Merchant Limited of Bombay, against a firm Jayanarayan Trilokchand of Sambalpur in summary suit No. 180 of 1948 of the Bombay City Civil Court. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate. Judge of Sambalpur. Execution was levied against the movable property of the firm Jayanarayan Trilokchand.Notice on the execution application was issued against the firm represented by Madanlal Lath. Madanlal Lath was the son of Trilokchand. Madanlal filed an application under Section 47, Civil P. C. in Misc. Case No. 33 of 1953 alleging that Jayanarayan Trilokchand was the name of the firm run by his father who died abo...
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Nath Ray Vs. Nityananda Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori175
Panigrahi, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a simple point of law which is covered by authority. The appellant was in occupation of a house belonging to the plaintiff, as a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, The plaintiff obtained an order of exemption, as required under Section 5, Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1947 (Act 5 of 1947), and after serving a notice to quit Instituted a suit for ejectment and compensation. The suit was dismissed on the ground that in, addition to the exemption order under Section 5 of the Act, an order under Section 13 permitting the plaintiff to sue was required before the plaintiff could institute the suit. In arriving at this decision the Court relied on a decision of this Court, reported in Krishna Chandra v. Sushila Mitra, 1951 Orissa 105 (AIR V 38) (SB) (A). Admittedly, the plaintiff did not obtain permission to sue, as required under Section 13 of the Act. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge. The appellate Court held that the provisions of S...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sahu and anr. Vs. Gadadhar Ramanuj Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori128
Mohapatra, J.1. This second appeal of defendants 1 and 2 is against the confirming Judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants in respect of a house situate in the town of Puri.2. The only point urged in the second appeal is that the notice to quit is not valid.3. The Courts below have concurrently found that in fact it was a case of monthly tenancy according to the English calendar month.4. Defendant I is the original tenant. Defendant 2 is his brother. Defendants 3 to 7 are the Sub-tenants of defendant 1.5. The relevant portion of the notice is to the effect that the defendants are to quit the house by the morning of 1-10-1949. This notice was issued by the plaintiff on 26-8-1949 and was served upon the defendants on 27-8-1949. Mr. Das, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that the notice is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act as It does not expire with the e...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Bhagavan Shewratna and anr. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Ori145; 22(1956)CLT208; [1956]7STC645(Orissa)
Mohapatra, J. 1. These two petitions are under Article 226, Constitution of India for quashing the orders of assessment under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act 14 of 1947). These two petitions were heard1 together and will be governed by this Judgment of ours. 2. O.J.C. 234/54: -- The petitioner in this case is a registered dealer within the meaning ofthe said Act and has obtained a certificate of Registration. The central place of business of lie petitioner in oil, oil-seeds, turmeric, hemp, jute, etc., is at Berhampur within the district of Ganjam. The assessment in question refers to the quarters ending on the last days of March, june and September, 1953. The petitioner being a registered dealer purchased articles mentioned in the certificate of Registration from another registered dealer with the undertaking that the articles were to be resold n Orissa. On this position, therefore, both the petitioner and the selling registered dealer were exempt from pay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›