Orissa Court December 1960 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.
Banchhanidhi Behera Vs. Ananta Upadhaya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori9
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner here. Defendants 1 and 6 are two brothers. The plaintiff-petitioner purchased the western half of the suit plots from defendant No. 6 on 10-8-51. Prior to that, defendants 2 to 5 had purchased the whole of the suit plots from defendant No. 1 purporting to have made the sale as the Karta of the family of defendants 1 and 6, on 10-4-51. Defendants 7 and 8 are the lessees of the plaintiff.The plaintiffs suit was one for recovery of possession, or in the alternative for partition. One of the main issues was whether there had been partition between defendants 1 and 6 prior to the two sales--The trial court passed a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff, holding that there had been mutual partition between defendants 1 and 6, or their family properties. The two appeals were filed against this decree--one by defendant No. 1 and the other by defendants 2 to 5, and both the appeals were heard analogously.D...
Chunilal Ojha Vs. Mul Shankar Ojha and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori169
Narasimham, C.J.1. This appeal was argued by Mr. M. Mohanty for the appellant, who alter placing the evidence of the appellant-plaintiffs witnesses and also that of most of the witnesses of the defendants and some of the material documents exhibited in the case raised the question of adducing additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order 41, C. P. C. Counsel for both sides were heard on this question and we have decided to direct the recording of additional evidence by the lower Court under Rule 27 of Order 41, C. P. C. as prayed for the appellant. We give below our reasons for this decision.2. This is a simple suit for partition and other consequential reliefs between the parties who are all descended from a common ancestor as will be clear from the geneological tree shewn below : PURUSHOTTAM OJHA | ------------------------------------- | | | Lakhmishankar Narbheram Shyamjee (died without (died on 21-7-1934) (died in 1918) issue on 2-3-33) married Mani | Kumari defdt. 2/a Chunifal | (Pla...
Kasinath Mukherji Vs. Collector of Puri
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori21
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional District Judge of Puri rejecting a reference made by the appellant-claimant, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of the Collector of Puri. .252 acres of homestead lands of the appellant appertaining to plot Nos. 1712, 1713 and 1714 in the town of Bhubaneswar close to the famous temple of Lord Lingaraj were acquired by the Collector for the improvement of another Temple known as Chitrakarani Temple which lies adjacent to the acquired plots. The said Temple is under the management of the Archeological Department of the Government of India. The acquisition was made in two instalments. The first one was on 10th November 1947 when 126 acres were acquired and the second one was on the 14th September 1949, when the remaining 126 acres were acquired. The claimant had used the plots for the purpose of storing sugar-cane presses which he used to let out on hire to cultivators. There was a stone w...
Krushna Kar and ors. Vs. Kanhu Charan Kar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori85
S. Barman, J.1. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants from a confirming decision o the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack whereby he affirmed a decision of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for partition with a prayer under Section 4 of the Partition Act for buying up the portion of the dwelling house sold by defendant No. 1 to two stranger purchasers defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 2. A genealogical table,--showing the relationship of the parties, other than the purchaser defendants 2 and 3, who are outsiders,--is set out as follows : _________________________________ | | Madhu Rama | | Girdhari _________|________________ | | | Pandu D.4 Raghu Maguri | ________________|______________ Binayak | | Punada Krushna P.2 D.1 _______________|________________ | | Mangovinda Biswanath P.3 P.4The defendants 2 and 3 are purchasers from the defendant No. 1 and they are strangers to the family. The suit property is the joint family property of the family includi...
Mukunda Behera and ors. Vs. Subarna Bewa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori3
Misra, J. 1. Defendants excluding defendant No. 3 are the appellants in this Second Appeal. Dibakar and Ratnakar were two brothers. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are respectively the son, the widow and the mother of Dibakar. The plaintiff is the wife of Ratnakar. Defendant No. 3 is a purchaser of some of the suit properties from the appellants. The suit under appeal, which, was filed in May, 1956, is one for partition of the joint family properties of Dibakar and Ratnakar. Ratnakar had gone out to work in Calcutta side, far away from his native place, in 1946. A rumour reached his family that he was dead. The plaintiff sent her brother and another to go and make necessary enquiries. On their return they informed the plaintiff that Ratnakar was dead, as a result of which the plaintiff became a widow in 1948. In 1950 the plaintiff transferred her entire interest in the suit land, on the assumption that there had been severance of joint family status between Ratnakar and the other branch. Thereup...
Kotni R.N. Subudhi Vs. V.R.L. Murthy Raju
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ori180
R.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 29-9-56 of Shri P. C. De, Additional District Judge, Berhampur granting Letters of Administration with Will annexed in favour of the respondent in respect of the estate of one Annapurna Debi.2. Deceased Annapurna Debi, the testatrix by her last will dated 13-10-52 gave away all her move-able and immoveable properties to her younger brother, Vaisya Raju Laxman Murty Raju, the respondent in this appeal. The testatrix who was married to Kotini Madhusudan Subudhi left her husband's home: sometime prior to her deadi and came to her father's house at Konaiput where she executed this Will just two days prior to her death. The respondent filed an application u/s. 278 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of the District Judge, Ganjam to prove the Will and to obtain necessary Letters of Administration.3. The application was first opposed by Kotini Madhusudhan Subudhi, the husband of the testatrix and, after his death, by the ...
Bichhu Mallik Vs. Bimala Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori23
ORDERJ.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is the younger brother of the deceased husband of the respondent. After the respondent became a widow, she was in keeping of the petitioner and she begot a child through him. Sometime thereafter the petitioner drove out the respondent and did not take any step to maintain the respondent and the child. The respondent filed a petition under Section 488 Cr. P. C. for her maintenance and that of the child, alleging that the petitioner had married her. A compromise was arrived at in the same proceeding, and the petitioner undertook to pay Rs. 3/- per month towards the maintenance of the child, to pay Rs. 65/- towards the construction of a house, to supply doors and door leaves and to further supply certain cooking materials and utensils to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not keep his promise, the respondent sought to execute the compromise in the criminal court, and got the arrear maintenance provided for the child. The earlier compromise was modif...
Radha Ballav Thakur Vs. Dayal Chand Bose
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori15
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. The plaintiff, who was the opposite party in the defendant's application in the Court below for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision directed' against an order passed by the learned Munsif, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 415 of 1960 whereby he set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. The facts, shortly stated, are these: The defendant No. 1 Dayal Chandra Bose is the husband of defendant No. 2. On May 15, 1959, the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit being T. S. No. 141 of 1959-in the court of the 2nd Munsif, Cuttack, against the defendants, whose village home is at Kuapal, in the district of Cuttack and the defendant No. 1, was also serving at Khadi Board at Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, there were two modes of service on the defendant No. 1, namely by a registered post containing the summons and the ...
Mahadei Bewa and anr. Vs. Keluni Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ori71
J.K. Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 over a preliminary decree arising out of a suit for partition. The suit property comprises of two plots Nos. 72 and 73, measuring 23 acre and .104 acre respectively in Cuttack town--both contiguous the latter plot being to the east and south of the former. To the west of the two plots lies a lane and to the north of the two plots lies the main road. The two plots Originally belonged to three brothers--Harekrushna, Udayanath and Krushna. Defendant no. 1 purchased the l/3rd share of Udayanath in 1934, and purchased the l/6th share of one of the two sons of Harekrushna in 1935. In 1938 the l/6th share of the other son of Harekrushna was purchased by defdt. No. 2, a deity, represented through its marfatdar, then a minor who himself was represented by his mother, the plaintiff. In the same year and shortly after the said purchase, the plaintiff purchased the l/3td share of Krushna. Before Harekrushna's sons and br...
State of Orissa Vs. Jagannath Boral and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ179
R.K. Das, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal dated 6.12.1960 passed by Sri R.N. Dhal Samanta, Magistrate, First Class, Puri in case No. C(II)-129/60.2. The prosecution case may be stated as follows: Jagannath Boral, accused No. 1, filed a criminal case No. C(I) 465 of 1958 against Kashinath Mohapatra and others Under Section 323/426 I.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri. The case was transferred to the court of Sri A.K. Das Gupta, Sub-Deputy Magistrate III Class, Puri (P.W. 6) who recorded the evidence of some of the witnesses including that of the present accused person, both of whom figured a, prosecution witnesses in that cases. Ultimately judgment (Ex. 3) in the original case was delivered by Sri P.C. Patnaik, Magistrate III Class, Puri, (P.W. 2) on 30.9.1959, acquitting the accused persons in that case.Thereafter, on 22.12.1959 Kashinath Mohapatra (P.W. 1) who was accused in the previous criminal case, filed a petition (Ex. 4) to start a procee...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »