Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori130
S. Barman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, in this second appeal, from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, whereby he allowed in part, an appeal from the decision or the learned Munsif, Cuttack and decreed the plaintiff's suit with certain conditions.2. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the defendant, as appears from a short genealogical table set out below- Mana Bawa | First Wife=Natbar (dead)=Tila Bewa (Plaintiff)3. On May 10, 1951, the defendant mother-in-law gifted away the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff daughter-in-law, by a registered deed of gift (Ext. 1). Until 1953, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit lands and lived with her husband Natabar who died in 1953, After Natabar's death, the plaintiff lived with the defendant mother-in-law till 1954. In 1954, the plaintiff having been neglected by the mother-in-law she (plaintiff) left for her father's house. Thereafter the plaintiff a applied for mutation in respect of the suit lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1961]12STC205(Orissa)
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the sale of cement by the petitioner to the State Trading Corporation for a price of Rs. 30,39,017-25 nP. under the Cement Control Order, has been rightly taxed as sales under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is a limited company manufacturing cement and other products, at a place known as Rajgangpur in the State of Orissa. The company has been registered as a dealer under the Act and holds registration certificate No. S. A. 1999. For the quarter ending 30th September, 1956, the total turnover on the sale of cement by the said firm amounted to Rs. 30,39,017-25 nP. The 'sale' was made and delivery of cement effected in favour of the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori40
G.C. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the sole plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Ganjam dismissing his suit.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are these: Plaintiff commenced an action for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed house situated at village Sandhamara. According to the plaintiff the suit-house constituted his ancestral property and that at a family partition in 1949, one third share therein was allotted to him, and the remaining two-thirds share was allotted to his two uncles, Arjun and Kandha. Plaintiff purchased the share of his two uncles on 19-12-1950 under two sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2. Thus, he became the sole owner of the entire property. The defendant who is the son-in-law of a sister of the plaintiff's uncle, Arjun Padhan is said to have occupied the back portion of the house in February 1947, with the permission of Arjun who was at the time manager of the plaintiff's family. After the acquisition of the right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori167
S.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiffs who have been unsuccessful in both the Courts below have brought this second appeal arising out of a suit claiming for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from hanging tarpulin and other clothings and performing Jatra thereunder on the Sarbasadharan Road in the town of Bhadrak while the plaintiffs would be carrying on their religious procession for immersion ceremony of the deity 'Durga' on the dasahara days.Plaintiffs' case is that they belong to very ancient family, known in the locality as Laha Family, of Bhadrak, and from time immemorial they have been celebrating the Durga Puja festival by worshipping and offering bhog to the Durga image during the Dasahara days; they have been carrying on religious procession for the immersion ceremony on the public street of the town of Bhadrak to perform the, immersion ceremony in the river Salandi.While the procession would be carried on through the public highway on the road there are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori121; 1961CriLJ133
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur recommending the setting aside of an order dated 18-2-60 passed by a First Class Magistrate of Uditnagar directing delivery of possession of certain lands io the second party (opposite party in this proceeding),2. The disputed lands were the subject matter of a regular proceeding under Section 145 Cri. P. C. before the said Magistrate, in MiscellaneousCase No. 602/T-435 of 1959. The lands were attached during the pendency of the proceeding. The learned Magistrate eventually dropped the proceeding under Section 145 Cri. P. C. on 18-1-60 observing that he was not inclined to believe that there would be any fresh breach of peace between the parties and that they might get their dispute decided by the Civil Court.On the question of possession lie held that neither party was in actual possession as the disputed lands were cultivated by tenants. He also observed that neither party threatened to dispossess the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1961CriLJ136
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J 1. This revision raises an interesting question of law. Petitioners 1 and 2 namely Trilochan Das and Radiha Charan Das along with other petitioners and another person named Krushna Chandra Das were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack on 11-5-1956. On 14-5-1956 their appeal was admitted by the High Court and they were directed to be released on bail. Eventually on 20-12-1957 the conviction of petitioners 1 and 2 and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment passed on each of them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were maintained by the High Court by its Judgment in Criminal Appeal No 65 of 1950.The High Court also maintained the conviction and sentence passed on the remaining appellants, except Krushna Das, who was acquitted. Intimation of the result of the appeal was sent to the Additional Sessions Judge and the records were also sent, in due course, to the lower court. But it appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori60
Narasimham, C.J.1. The appellant (who is known as the Patayat Sahib) is the younger brother of the Ruler of Dhenkanal State which was one of the sovereign States under the paramountcy of the British Crown till 1047. That State merged with the Provinceof Orissa in pursuance of the well known Merger Agreement entered into between, the Ruler of Dhenkanal and the Dominion of India on the 15th December, 1947 which was given effect to from Ist January 1948. In consequence of the agreement the entire administration of that State was taken over by the Orissa Government ay the delegated authority of the Dominion Government. The appellant was getting a monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- from Dhenkanal District Treasury on the authority of a permanent pay order issued to him by the Ruler o Dhenkanal in 1931. This pay order was based on a Sanad (Ext. 2) granted to him by the Ruler of Dhenkanal on 1-3-31 by virtue of which, the then Ruler, with a view to make adequate provision for the maintenance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori161
Narasimham, C. J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dhenkanal decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of title and ether consequential reliefs in respect of 13 villages in the district of Dhenkanal on the strength of a grant made in her favour by the Ruler of Dhenkanal on 14th May, 1939.2. The respondent plaintiff is the Rani Sahiba of Dhenkanal, her husband, the Raja Sahib of Dhenkanal being the Ruler of Dhenkanal which was a Feudatory State under the paramountcy of the British Crown till the lapse of paramountcy with the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The plaintiff's husband (P. W. 1), Raja Sankar Pratap Singh Deo Mahendra Bahadur, was married to her sometime in 1924. In 1935 he made a grant of 8684.55 acres of land (Ex. A) in her favour.The reason for the grant, as stated in that document, Ext. A was that 'on the analogy of the precedents that are in vogue in the family of the Rulers of the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori178
Mohapatra, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st August 1956 of Sri B. K. Das, Subordinate Judge of Mayurbhanj, arising out of a suit for enforcing an anomalous mortgage bond executed on the 4th May, 1948, by the present defendant No. 1 (Bhabatosh Das) and one Maheswari Debi, since deceased, who was the mother of defendants 1, 2 and 3. The agreement in the bond was to the effect that defendant No. 11 would be entitled to draw amounts from the plaintiff-bank to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff after making adjustment had laid the claim at Rs. 12,477/11/9. Defendants 2 and 3, who were not parties to the transaction, have been made parties in the suit as heirs of Maheswari. It is to be noted, the Properties mortgaged stood in the name of Maheswari, the mother. Defendants 4 to 7 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 8 is the son of defendant No. 2, Defendants 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 supported the case of the plaintiff. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1961Ori105
Mohapatra, J.1. This is a First appeal against the judgment anddecree dated 5-11-1956, of Sri S. K. Mitra, Subordi-nate Judge of Sambalpur, arising out of a suit for foreclosure on the basis of a mortgage transaction dated 1-3-37 for a principal amount of Rs. 3500/-. The suit has been filed for Rs. 7000/- by the plaintiff Gopal Jew Mohapravu, represented through Raghunath Pujhari, the Manager of the deity. Defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased father of defendant No. 1 are the executants of the mortgage deed. Defendants 3 to 6 are the sons of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 7 is a purchaser of a portion of themortgaged property. It may be noted that in the mortgage deed, the mortgagee was named as Gopal Jew Mohapravu through the then manager, Nilamani Das. The plaintiffs suit is on the basis that the mortgage transaction is for the legal necessity ofjoint family consisting of defendants 1 to 6, and as such binding on the defendants.The main defence is that the present so-called next frien...
Tag this Judgment!