Orissa Court March 1962 Judgments
Kasinath Das and ors. Vs. Nisakar Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ori164
Barman, J.1. The plaintiffs,--certain town living absentee landlords in respect of their village lands in the country side,--are the appellants in this First Appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that the defendants, who claim to be Bhagachasis of the suit lands, have no right, title and interest therein, and that they are mere trespassers, for recovery of possession and mesne profits for the sum of Rs. 2493/-from the defendants, on the allegation that the defendants are trespassers, in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The facts--few and simple--are these. The suit lands are 13.16 acres in area spread over in different villages. The plaintiffs claim the suit lands as owners in possession. It is said that the defendants encroached upon the said lands, taking advantage of the plaintiffs' absence from the village. The plaintiffs are members of a joint Hindu family and are residents of Cuttack To...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswati Hotiani Vs. Smt. Rupa Hotiani and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ori193
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in a suit brought for maintenance against her step-mother-in-law (defendant No. 1) and the alienee (defendant No. 2) of a portion of the joint family properties,2. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the parties; BASUDEB __________________________________|_____________________________________________ | | | | | |Sidheswar Dwarika Shyamsunder Bimbadhar Gangadhar Damodar | Dead Mst Usha D. 4 Dead Mst.Daimati D. 5 D. 6 | Radhika D.3 D.7 | | |_________________ Mrutanjoya D. 8 | |Ist Wife 2nd WifeMst Sukanti Mst. Rupa D.1Pitabas (Dead)Mst SarswatiPlaintiffPitabas, husband of the plaintiff predeceased his father on 24-4-38 while in a state of jointness with him. Sidheswar married defendant No. 1 after the marriage of the plaintiff With his son Pitabas, presumably in the hope of begetting sons through her but defendant no. 1 proved barren. Sidheswar di...
Tag this Judgment!Satrughna Sahu Vs. Bijoyananda Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ori177; 28(1962)CLT233
Misra, J.1. An application dated 6th March 1962 was filed on 7th March, 1962, at 4 p.m. by Satrughna Sahu (petitioner-appellant) with a prayer that as he did not want to proceed with the appeal it be dismissed for non-prosecution. It was put up next day when the appeal had been fixed for Judgment.The judgment had already been prepared and it was ordered to be kept in 3 sealed cover until the disposal of this application. A copy of this application had been, served on 6th March 1963 only on Sri. K. Patnaik, advocate for respondent No. 1, The appellant was therefore directed to serve copies on other respondents.2. Akulananda Behera, respondent 2, filed a counter on 15th March, 1962 alleging that the application for non-prosecution of the appeal was not maintainable as the case had already been fully heard on 5th and 6th March, 1962, and was only pending for judgment and that the appellant had nothing further to do for the progress of the appeal. It was further alleged that the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Samal Vs. Guru Prasad Parida and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori21
S. Barman, J. 1. The applicability of the principle of foreseeability of consequence, as the effective test of liability for an alleged act of negligence, is the main point involved in this Second appeal by the defendant, after his death -- as the appellant from a reversing decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Baiasore, whereby he set aside in part the findings of the learned Munsif, Balasore, and decreed the plaintitfs' suit in their favour in terms of his judgment, in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The plaintiffs' case, shortly stated, was thus: The plaintiffs are owners of plots Nos, 508, 508 and 509 of mouza Nischantpur in the district of Baiasore. The plaintiffs' said plots are adjacent to the defendant's plot No. 507 as shown in the map which is a part of the records. On June 17, 1956, in the midst of the monsoon of the year, the defendant dug a tank on the south of his plot No. 507 without any embankment, and put the earth, on the sides which is alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Sahu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1962
Reported in: 28(1962)CLT398; 1963CriLJ377
G.K. Misra, J.1. Appellants Ramchandra Sahu and Hajari Kondh were charged under Section 302/34 and Section 201, I P.C. Ramchandra has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. Hajari has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and R.I. for three years respectively, both the sentences to run concurrently. Keshab Jhoria has been convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years. Rupsingh Majhi has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. Admittedly Hajari Kondh, Rupsingh Majhi and Keshab Jhodia were the servants under Ramchandra Sahu in his liquor bhati.2. The prosecution case is that Nilambar Naik (P.W. 10) is the step-brother of deceased Pitambar. Nilambar took an advance of Rs, 300/-from Ramchandra for supply of bricks. Both Pitambar and Nilambar also took advance of Rs. 450/- f...
Tag this Judgment!SerajuddIn and Co. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ori183
Narasimham, C.J. 1. The applicant holds a lease under the Government of Orissa for extraction of manganese ore from a certain area in Keonjhar district. The lease was first taken, by him on 29-12-1947 from the then Ruler of Keonjhar, prior to its merger with Orissa. The lease contained a stipulation for payment of royalty at a certain rate. It also contained an arbitration clause (Clause 12) providing for the settlement of any dispute between the lessor and the lessee as regards payment of royalty or any other money under the terms of the tease. After the merger of the Keonjhar State with Orissa with effect 1-1-48 that lease was annulled by the Government of Orissa. Subsequently after some vicissitudes, (which need not be mentioned in detail here) there was a compromise between the Government of Orissa on the one hand and the petitioner on the other and another agreement dated 22-12-52 (Annexure B to the Writ petition) was entered into by which the original lease of 1947 was revived su...
Tag this Judgment!Udainath Misra Vs. Mst. Chhaya Misrani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori27; 28(1962)CLT353
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Second Appeal No. 405 of 1960 arises out of Title Suit No. 26 of 1954 and Second Appeal No. 404 of 1960 arises out of Title Suit No. 13 of 1955, the sum were respectively filed on November 16, 1954 and February 24, 1955. The genealogy in Title Suit No. 26 of 1954 is as follows: SIDHESWAR MISRA (D.1) | ___________________________ | | Udayanath D.2) Parasana (D-3) Wife - Chhaya PlaintiffChhaya filed the suit for recovery of maintenance and arrear of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. The genealogy in T. S. No. 13 of 1955 is as follows: NALAMBAR DAS | _________________________________ | | | | Kusa Dhanu Renu Chhayya (D-1) (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) Husband - Udayanath Plaintiff. This suit was filed by Udayanath for restitution of conjugal rights against Chhaya. Both the suits were heard analogously and the learned Subordinate Judge of Bolangir disposed them of on September 28, 1957. Title Suit No. 26 of 1954 was decreed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20/- pe...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Rajguru Mohapatra and anr. Vs. Nabakishore Rajaguru Mohapatra ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori45
Misra, J.1. Defendants 5 and 10 are the appellants. Defendant No. 10 is the wife of defendant 5. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties : -- PURUSHOTTAM RAJGURU MOHAPATRA | _________________________________________________ | | | Dasarathi Damodar Sadasiv, adopted | | to Biswanath of Gopinath (dead 1943) | Gulugonda (adopted son, Annapurna (wife) | | | Nabakishore (adopted)(Plaintiff) | | _________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Gopinath adopted Basudev Narayan Raghunath Gadadhar alias Brojaraj dead 1950. to Dasarathi | Jagannath | Pitambar dead Wife=Sebti | | (adopted) D.8 | 1950 | Nabakishore (adopted) | ____________________ | Plaintiff. | | | | | Praballad D.3 Shamsundar D.4 | | | __________________________________________________ | | | | | | Haribaro D.5 Pusushottam Jagannath Ad- Balabhadra D.7 | W. Kamala D.10 D.6 dopted to Narayan W. Sailabala D.11 | | _______________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Chintamoni Barik and anr. Vs. Chari Bewa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ori224
Misra, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit arises out of an application filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. The plaintiffs' case is that Late Krushna Das executed a Will (Ex. 1) on July 27, 1949 in favour of the plaintiffs. From the date of execution of the document the plaintiffs continued in possession of the disputed property. Krushna Das died on August 2, 1949. Chari Bewa (the defendant) is the sister of Krushna Das and filed Title Suit No. 178 of 1950 in the Court of the Munsif of Bhadrak for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession challenging the Will as frau- lent. That suit was ultimately decreed in second appeal No. 379 of 1952 and the High Court found that the plff's, who were defendants in that suit, failed to prove that the alleged document was bona fide and voluntary transaction executed by Krushna Das after fully understanding the nature and character of the transaction. The High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Kashiprasad (by Kashiprasad Jhunjhunwala) Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: 28(1962)CLT195; (1962)IILLJ575Ori
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 35(1) of the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1956 (Orissa Act 30 of 1956--hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the sentence of fine passed on him by a second-class magistrate of Cuttaok.2. The petitioner is the employer of a firm known as Surajmal Kashiprasad of Buxibazaar, Cuttack. On 31 October 1959 the assistant labour officer and inspector of shops and commercial establishments, Guttaok, filed a complaint against the petitioner for his prosecution under Section 35(1) of the Act for contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1958, thereinafter referred to as the rules.3. The petition of complaint may be quoted In full:Petition of Complaint.In the Court of the Subdivisions Magistrate,Sadar, CuttackState (on the complaint o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›