Orissa Court December 1959 Judgments
Kanyaka Parameswari Cloth Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori154
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against an order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Berhampur in S.C.C. Suit No. 257 of 1956 whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The relevant facts, shortly stated, are these: In September 1955, the plaintiff, under an Invoice No. 170 dated September 22, 1955 consigned from Ahmedabad on Western Railway one bale of cotton piece goods for delivery to it at the Chhatrapur Railway Station on the South Eastern Railway. The goods arrived on October 15, 1955 and were left open on the platform at the Chliatrapur Railway Station instead of in a protected place with the consequence that the goods are alleged to have been drenched and damaged by rain water. The goods having not been taken delivery of within the reasonable time, demurrage Was charged. On December 28, 1955 an Assessment of Damage Certificate was issued by the Station Master Chhatrapur on the value of the bale. On January 27, 1956 a claim notic...
Tag this Judgment!Tangudu Viswanadham and ors. Vs. Tangudu Narayanamurthy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori153; 26(1960)CLT106
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No, 19 of 1956 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur. That suit is one for partition of a joint ancestral house belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. Defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiffs, and defendant No. 2is the brother of the latter. Defendant No, 3 is the son of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 4 is the mother of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. According, to the plaintiffs, they have got 5/18 share in that house, defendant No. 1 has got 1/18 share, each of defendants 2 and 3 has got 3/18 share, and defendant No. 4 has got 6/18 share. There was a money suit (No. 15 of 1949) against the deceased grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and. in execution of the decree in the said suit by defendant No. 5 (E. P. No. 34 of 1952), the suit house was attached and put to auction sale. Defendant No. 6 purchased the said house in auction sale and deposited the sale proceeds, and before th...
Tag this Judgment!Satyabhama Panigrahiani Vs. Krishna Chandra Panigrahi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ori69; 26(1960)CLT274
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. This revision petition relates to Title Suit No. 7 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsif, Parlakimedi. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit and the opposite parties, the plaintiffs in the said suit, are her step sons. There was a suit (No. 11 of 1945) in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Srikakulam, in which the parties to the present dispute were parties. That suit was one by the present petitioner, as the plaintiff, for maintenance, for arrear maintenance, for division of certain properties and for certain other claims of money.In the said suit, there was a decree based on compromise between the parties, in which 3 garces of paddy per annum were fixed towards the running maintenance of the petitioner, and a stipulated amount of money was payable to her for all outstanding claims. The said annual maintenance was payable at the petitioner's place within the jurisdiction of Srikakulam Court and certain landed properties situated under the same jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nityananda Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori132; 26(1960)CLT116; 1960CriLJ1120
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. Shri Nityananda Mohapatra, who is a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, has been hauled up for contempt at the instance of this Court. The background which led to the said contempt proceeding may briefly be stated. In March 1958, elections were held for the Cuttack Municipality and one Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu was elected as the Vice-Chairman. The validity of the said Municipal elections was challenged by one Shri Bhupendra Kumar Bose and by an order dated 11-12-58 in O. J. C. No. 72 of 1958, this Court declared the elections invalid and issued a direction to the Municipal councillors restraining them from functioning as such.Consequential thereto, under the orders of the State Government under Section 404 of the Orissa Municipal Act, the District Magistrate of Cuttack took over the administration of the Municipality and remained in charge till 15-1-59. On that date, an Ordinance was passed by the Governor of Orissa validating the said Municipal Elections, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishna Panda and anr. Vs. Natabar Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori130
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. In this civil revision the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the petitioners in revision directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Kendrapara District Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 98 of 1956, whereby he rejected the defendant-petitioners' application for hearing an issue as to pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.2. The plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 brought the suit for partition against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-opposite parties Nos. 5 to 7 in the Court of Munsif, Kendrapara. In the suit plaintiff-opposite parties, inter alia, also prayed for declaration of title in respect of a portion of the suit land and for damages. The plaintiffs put the valuation of the suit at Rs. 1,500/- for the purpose of jurisdiction as stated in the plaint. In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioners they took the defence that the present market value of the properties in dispute will be Rs. 5,000/- and as such the Court has no pecuniary ju...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chandra Rout and anr. Vs. Public Prosecutor
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori116; 1960CriLJ966
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a revision petition to quash a criminal proceeding in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1958, pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack, against the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Editor and petitioner No. 2 is the Printer and publisher of an Oriya daily known as 'Matrubhumi'. In its issue dated 31-5-1958 was published a statement said to have been made by Dr. Ram Mohan Lohia, a prominent politician of India regarding the political crisis which prevailed in rissa during that month. The following is the English translation of his statement:'When his attention was drawn to the last political crisis which prevailed in Orissa, he replied that the Congress is a new oppressive party and those who desire to get into power by pushing the former aside (i.e. Ganatantra Parishad) are old oppressors. So, while expressing his personal views he said that the single member of our party should remain neutral under the circumstances. While h...
Tag this Judgment!Bipra Charan Mohanty Vs. Mohan Sundar Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori109
Barman, J. 1. In this first appeal, the defendant No. 5 is the appellant from a decision of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 25/ 1955 of 1951/50 (Partition) whereby the plaintiff's suit was decreed on contest with costs against the defendants 2, 4 and 5 and without costs against the rest.2. The suit arose in the following circumstances: The parties belonged to a Hindu Mitak-shara joint family. The relationship between them appears from a geneological table set below : MADHUSUDAN MOHANTY | ------------------------------------------------ | | | | | Krushna Keshab- Baman Balkun- Bipra Charan Charan =Sabitri tha Charan (dead) =Ratna- (D.4 (D.5) 1938 moni ka) =window (D.3) | Mono- | Hari- rama | charan (D 1 ka) | (D.4) | | Dibya- | singha (D.1) | | ----------------------- | | Madan Mohansundar (D.2) (Plaintiff)The plaintiff Mohansundar filed the suit against the defendants for a decree for partition of the joint family immovables described in Schedule B, S...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Parida and anr. Vs. Dinabandhu Pahi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori151
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent decisions of the lower Courts, dismissing his suit for partition.2. The disputed property originally belonged to a Hindu joint family consisting of the branched of two brothers namely Nanda and Rahasa. The pedigree is given below: NANDA PAHI | --------------------------------------- | | | Rushi Balaram Adhikari Jadu Purushottam Sagar-wife Rammamani (D.8) (D.5) (D.7) | Narayan ---------- RAHAS PAHI | --------------------------- | | Kinu Brundaban | | Banchannidhi | (D.4) | ------------------------------------------- | | | | Dinabandhu krupasindhu Mayadhar Daughter | | | (Married) (D.1) (D.2) (D.3) to Gananath (D.9)3. On the 10th March 1937, by two registered gift deeds (Exts. A and A. 3) defendants 1, 2 and 3; Kinit (father of defendant No. 4) and Adhikari (father of defendants 6 and 7 and Kartha of the joint family consisting of himself and two sons of his two brothers Rushi and Balaram transferred by way of gift ab...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Ali and anr. Vs. Sk. Mahammad Ali
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori168; 1960CriLJ1352
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. Both the petitioners have been convicted under Section 447, I. P. C. by a FirstClass Magistrate and each has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-. In default of payment of fine, petitioner No. 1 has been sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment whereas the other petitioner has been sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners unsuccessfully moved the Sessions Judge in revision against their conviction.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2. The father of the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 are agnatic cousins. The complainant's case is that the disputed plot of land was once the property of this father and petitioner No. 1, which they sold away by a registered deed in favour of the complainant's son in early part of 1956, and the complainant, who lived separate from his father, while in possession of the said land, raised a building in one portion, which he let out to another on hire, and raised jute crops over the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswati Dei Vs. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ori129
S. Barman, J.1. In this Miscellaneous appeal, the plaintiff is the appellant from a judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganjam Nava-garh, Berhampur in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1955 against the decree passed by the learned Munsiff of Berhampur in Title Suit No. 77 of 1950.2. This matter, -- relating to jurisdiction and court-fee, -- arose out of the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land. Upon the vendor's failing to carry out his part of the contract, the plaintiff filed the suit against the vendor and in the suit she added the subsequent purchasers being defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The vendor is defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, as his Dewan, was also added as a party. The learned Munsit decreed the suit and in appeal from his decision the learned lower appellate court made an order of remand in terms as stated in his judgment.The order of the learned lower appellate court was that the judgment and decree of the learned. Munsif was set asid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »