Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori191
1. This is a petition by one singleshareholder of 1100 shares of Rs. 10/- each for winding up--on the alleged ground of substratumgone -- of the Cuttack Electric Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) which has been supplying electric light and power to Cuttack town since 1929. It is said that at all material times the company was and is still a prosperous and well managed business concern. Theshareholders of the company are satisfied with the progress and prosperity of the company; ever since 1956 the shareholders have earned good dividends in respect of their shares.In about 1930 the company invested Rs. 5 'lacs or thereabout in its undertaking at Cuttack ...and at present the total capital employed in the working of the said undertaking amounts to about Rs. 31.5 lacs. On the basis of the present valuation of lands and buildings at Cuttack and its suburbs and on the basis of the high cost of machinery, materials, stores and other articles in the market in Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori176
Narasimham, C. J. 1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance. 2. The property involved in this litigation consists of valuable house property in the heart of Cuttack town which originally belonged to defendant No. 1 Shri Nikunja Kishore Das. The plaintiff alleged that on 14-8-1957 defendant No. 1 entered into a binding contract with him to sell the property for Rs. 38,000/- but as the Khas-mahal is the landlord of the site, it was further agreed between the parties that a deed of contract would also be executed and duly registered, by defendant No. 1 with a view to facilitate the obtaining of permission from the Khasmahal for the transfer of the property in favour of the plaintiff. 3. But according to the plaintiff the agreement, between the parties that a deed of contract would be executed later on did not in any way defraet from the finality of the contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori187; 1964CriLJ168
R.L. Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Aska, and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The defendant, and the plaintiff are neighbours residing in village Serankuda, P. S. Patpar, but they have been on terms of enmity for several years. On 10-7-1959 defendant lodged information, at Patpur P. S. at 10 a.m. alleging that on the previous day (9-7-1959) at about noon the plaintiff set fire to the thatched portion of his house. The allegations in the F.I.R. are cot quite clear as to whether the defendant had actually seen the plaintiff setting fire to his house. There he says that he saw the plaintiff fleeing away, when the house was on fire, holding a glass and match box in his hand. The relevant passage in the F.I.R. reads as follows:'Kali Sahu Hatera Gotia Rasa Glass' Nia Pidi thila.'This may mean that he only saw the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori196
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and are disposed of together.2. Both the appeals arise out of the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Cuttack partially reversing the judgment of the Munshi 2nd Court Cuttack and decreeing joint possession of the disputed properties between plaintiff No. 2 and the defendants.3. The suit property consists of a very valuable house site appertaining to Darpattadar Khata No. 1349 in the town of Cuttack, bearing plot No. 2173 and No. 2174 of Current Settlement.4. There was previous litigation in respect of the same property between plaintiff No. (2) and defendant No. 1 and some other defendants. The judgment of the trial Court in that case was delivered on 29-4-1950 and the suit under appeal was filed on 8-5-1950 a week after the dismissal of the earlier suit. That suit was taken up to the High Court on second appeal and the decisions of the two lower courts were confirmed by the High Court on 2-4-1956...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori159
G.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. Their case is that they are in enjoyment of the disputed lands which constitute part of survey plot No. 1288 in village Jhadenkuli in the district of Ganjam. An order of eviction has been passed by the Board of Revenue against the plaintiffs as en-croachers, under Section 7 of the Orissa Act XV of 1954. They allege that they have acquired title to the disputed lands by adverse possession by being in continuous exclusive possession for more than 60 years in their own right, title and interest. The case of the State of Orissa is that there was no acquisition of title by adverse possession.2. The learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. But the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that' the suit is bad on; account of multi-fariousness. He recorded a further finding stating,'The oral evidence in this respect is also not cogent to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori140
S. Barman, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the Courts below is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for setting aside a certain kabala made in favour of defendant No. 1 and other incidental reliefs. The subject-matter to which this second appeal is confined is item No. 6 of the suit properties. 2. A geneological table showing the relationship of the parties other than the stranger purchasers is set out as follows : JAGA HARI SAHU=CHAMPA ___________|______________ __________|______ | | | | | Tara Mani Dei Gokhei Krishna Rukmani D.3. D.4 (dead) (dead) D.2.Plaintiff a stranger claims as purchaser from defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 1 also a stranger claims as purchaser from defendants. Nos. 2 and 3.3. On March 22, 1951 Jaga executed a Will in favour of her daughter defendant No. 4. On April 20, 1954, defendant No. 4 soldi the suit property to the plaintiff. On May 4, 1954 defendants 2 and 3 sold to defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori160
Narasimham, C. J. 1. These three appeals arise out of one judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack and are disposed of by one judgment.2. The main point in controversy in these appeals is whether the plaintiff Biswanath Poddar (principal respondent in all these appeals) is the validiy adopted son of one Raghunath Poddar, a Marwari businessman owning a shop in Cuttack town who died on 9-6-1957 leaving considerable properties.The genealogical tree given below is helpful for appreciating the claims of the parties: KANHAIYALAL _________________________|__________________________ | | | | | Raghunath Ramlal Muralidhar Harihar Ratni (D. 2 & D. 4)=Narayani =Shanti Line (said to be P. W. 8 extinct adopted) (D.2)=Rama Deisal | (Biswanath) Plff.The plaintiff's case was that Raghunath had at a somewhat elderly age, married Shanti Dei (defendant No. 1) who was then a young woman, but did not beget a son through her. For sometime before his death, he was not keeping fit and appreh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori229
G.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Her case may be stated in brief. Defendant 1 is the husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendants 3 to 7. They constitute a Hindu Mitakshara joint family of which defendant 1 is the Karta. They have their houses in the town of Athmallik and also in village Kandhapara whereto their agricultural lands are situate.Defendant 1's wife was seriously ill. So he wanted to shift his residence from the Athmaltik town. For the purpose of purchasing a new house-site and constructing a house thereon and for repayment of loan incurred from the Co-operative Bank, defendant 1 wanted to dispose of the house site mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint and sold the land with the house thereon to the plaintiff for Rs. 1175-00. On 2-2-1959, he executed a contract for sale (Ex. 4) on payment of Rs. 100/-. On the next day, he executed a registered sale-deed (Es. 1) on behalf of himself and his minor sons and received the balance of Rs. 1075.00. A f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1964CriLJ602
R.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order dated 4-2-1963 passed by the Sub-Divisionl Magistrate, Kuchinda, acquitting the respondent of offences Under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code.2. The accused Dhanmati Kisanin is the wife of the cousin brother of Dibyaraj Kisan, P. W. 1. The prosecution case is that on 28-8-1962, Dibyaraj, his wife Ghararaani (P. W. 2) and his mother Jamuna (P. W. 3) went to their land for some agricultural operations. As there was none else in the house, they chained the door from outside. In the bed room of the house, there was a bamboo basket (Jumpi) containing various gold and silver ornaments as well as some cash which was locked. After working for sometime in the field, P. W. 2 came back home to see if her son had come back from school, and saw the doors of the house lying open and the Jumpi containing the valuables missing. She reported this matter to her husband, P. W. 1 and he came back home and found the Jumpimueing. Then the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori170
G.K. Misra, J.1. The decree-holders are the appellants. They obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor (respondent) on 29-9-1951 in Money Suit No. 16 of 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhun in Rajasthan, and the decree was confirmed in appeal No. 21 of 1962 on 28-7-1952. The first execution case was levied on 9-4-1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in Execution case No. 28 of 1954, which was dismissed on part satisfaction on 31-3-1955. The present Execution case No. 29 of 1959 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur on 14-5-1959. From 31-3-1955, the date of disposal of Execution case No. 28 of 1954, till 14-5-1959, more than three years have elapsed in between these two dates, the decree-holders filed execution Case No. 188 of 1956 on 9-4-56 and Execution case No. 465 of 1958 on 8-9-1958 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhun, which were respectively dismissed on 16-10-1956 and 23-2-1959.2. The judgment-debtor filed an objection...
Tag this Judgment!