Orissa Court April 1957 Judgments
Hara Bewa and ors. Vs. Banchanidhi Barik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori243; 23(1957)CLT374
Mohapatra, J.1. This second appeal is by defendants 1, 6 and 7 against the confirming Judgment of Sri I. C. Misra Subordinate Judge of Balasore, arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for possession in respect of three schedules, of lands described in the plaint. It is the case of both parties that defendant No. 1 Kara Bewa inherited the properties on the death of Her husband Ranka Barik. The plaintiffs base their title on a registered sale-deed (Ext. A) dated 19-5-1949, conveying the entire properties for a consideration of Rs. 200/-. On 8-7-1949 she cancelled the document (Ext. A) by a registered cancellation deed (Ext. b) stating therein that the consideration money was not paid by the vendees as agreed. On 19-9-1049 she sold these properties by another registered sale-deed (Ext. C) in favour or defendants 6 and 7.2. The defence is that title had not passed in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the earlier document as the intention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Mandal Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori260; 1957CriLJ1300
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. The appellant Bihari Mandal was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.2. The appellant was charged under Section 302, I. P. C., for having intentionally caused the death of a boy aged 11 years by name Ganesh Mahanti at about noon on Sunday, 6-3-55. The appellant was the Mulia of one Sartuk Mahanti (P. W. 6). P. W. 6 had two Pana Barajas--one big and one small in that village. The appellant used to water the Pana Barajas and dine and breakfast in the house of P. W. 6 on the days he worked in the Pana Barajas. P. W. 6 had a brother who died leaving his widow Ambika (P. W. 3) and a daughter. According to the evidence of P. W, 3, there was some intrigue between her and the appellant in consequence of which Ambika became pregnant and was driven out of the house.Sachala (wife of P. W. 6) had a son and a daughter, the son Baikuntha being 10 years ol...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Sitaram Agarwala
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori276
Mohapatra, J.1. In the two suits from out of which both these appeals arise Orient Paper Mills Limited is the plaintiff. The defendant in each case is different.2. Second Appeal No. 148 of 1953 arises out of Title Suit No. 8 of 1949, where the defendant is one Anadi Ghosh. Second Appeal No. 493 of 1951 arises out of Title Suit No. 193 of 1949 where the defendants is one Sitaram Agarwala. In the two suits the plaintiff relies upon the same document, a registered lease-deed dated 10-4-47,3. Neither the two suits nor the two appeals before the first appellate Courts were heard to-gether. But this Court by an order dated 24-2-1955 directed both the appeals to be heard together and this judgment of ours will cover both the second appeals.4. The registered lease-deed on which the plaintiff bases his title in both the suits appertains to Holding No, 24 of mouza Khetrajpur with an area 3.61. Each of the suits are for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of 19 of plot ...
Tag this Judgment!Haribandhu Mohanty Vs. Harekrishna Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori280
ORDERP.V.B. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner, defendant in the suit before the First Munsif, Cuttack files this application in revision against the order of the Munsif holding that the valuation Of the suit given by the, plaintiffs and the court-fee paid on the same are correct. 2. The plaintiffs suit as finally appears from the plaint after amendment, is a suit fora declaration of their title and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from disturbing the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The suit lands are about 7 gunthas in extent. The defendant's contention was that the suit lands were valued at about Rs. 15,000/- and as such the court-fee paid was not correct, the valuation put by the plaintiff also was not correct and the Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit. These preliminary contentions of the defendant are the subject-matter of issues Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit which were decided by the learned Munsif in the first instance. The learned Munsif held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Banchhanidhi Naik Vs. Collector of Balasore
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori274
P.V.B. Rao, J.1. This Miscellaneous Second Appear by the judgment-debtor under a rent decree is filed against an order passed in appeal by the District Judge of Mayurbhanj confirming an order linden Section 47 C. P. C. by the Rent Suit Deputy Collector,. Bhadrak, in execution proceedings ot the decree.2. A rent decree was obtained in suit No. 9969 of 1941-42 on 17-4-42. The decree shows the properties on which the rent appears to have been claimed. There were subsequently appeals' against the said decree to the District Judge as well as to the High Court and the matter was finally decided on' 9-9-47. In execution of the said decree, the decree-holder, the Collector of Balasore on behalf of Lalita Dei Endowment Estate filed an execution application in Execution Case No. 927 of 1950-51 on 7-8-50 in which he prayed for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of the movable properties described in the execution application or by Sale of the immovable properties also describ...
Tag this Judgment!Anem Pedda Sivaparvatamma and ors. Vs. Executive Officer, Berhampur Mu ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori285; 23(1957)CLT445
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by some of the rate-payers of Berhampur Municipality arising out of a suit for a declaration that the sudden enhancement of the encroachment license-fee from Rs. 2-4-0 to Rs. 18-0-0 for every encroachment ranging from 1.sq. fit. to 50 sq. fit. on public roads within the Municipality, in pursuance of its resolution No. C. R. VII (4) dated the 5th November, 1947, is ultra vires and as such inoperative. 2. The suit was instituted on the 5th April 1050. Prior to the 11th November, 1950, Berhampur Municipality was governed by the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Madras Act V of 1920) which was in force to South orissa. Section 183 (1) of that Act authorised the Municipal Council to grant a license to an owner or occupier of certain premises and to allow certain projections and erections on or over public streets. Section 323 (2) of the said Act empowered the Municipality to charge fees for the issue of licenses under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Khetrabasi Padhan Vs. Bisikeshan Padhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori191; 23(1957)CLT363
Das, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, dated 4-2-54 dismissing his suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the deed of adoption executed by his adoptive father Baidyanath Padhan in favour of the defendant Bishikeshan Padhan on 7-3-44 is invalid and inoperative in law. The plaintiff's case was that he was adopted by his late adaptive father Baidyanath Padhan in or about the year 1908 on the 21st day of his birth. He was given in marriage by his adoptive father and Was living with Baidyanath ever since his adoption.In or about the year 1934, there was a quarrel between the adoptive father and the plaintiff on account of the present defendant having got certain lands recorded in Sis name. Since then both the father and the son lived separate in enjoyment of separate parcels of land. In the year 1936-37 Baidyanath filed a petition before the Assistant Dewan of the ex-State of Bauth for permission...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chandra Sahu Vs. Garib Kar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori212; 23(1957)CLT275
Das, J.1. This a plaintiff's appeal against the reversing judgment of the learned District Judge, Cuttack, modifying the decree passed by the trial Judge to the extent that defendant 2 is not liable for the debt.2. The facts leading up to this appeal are rather simple. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money on a handnote dated 5-3-49 (Ext. I) for a sum of Rs. 600/-. The defendant 1 alone executed the document in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff filed the suit against both the defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 1 is the nephew of defendant 2, and they are members of a Joint family. The plaintiff in paragraph 1 of his plaint stated that defendant 1 as Karta of the joint family, for their common benefit, that is, to pay up the decretal dues of one Sri Kasinath Mukherjee of Howrah as well as for maintenance borrowed the aforesaid sum of Rs. 500/-. The defendants in spite of demand by the plaintiff, did not Pay anything towards the loan, and accordingly forced the plaintiff t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Banchhanidhi Mehar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Ori165; 1957CriLJ899
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Government of Orissa against the acquittal of the respondent on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The Respondent was convicted by the Munsif-Magistrate, 1st class. Bargarh under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code find was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent was the President and Ex-officio Treasurer of the Birujipali Yarn Distribution Cooperative society affiliated to the Central Co-operative Bank, Bargarh. The Society was registered in 1948. The prosecution case is that the respondent, in his capacity as the President and Ex-Officio Treasurer of the said Co-operative Society, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1920-9-8. This was detected as a result of three audits conducted by P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. P. W. 1 audited the accounts for the period between 15-12-48 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›