Skip to content

Orissa Court December 1963 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.

Dec 09 1963

K. Subhadramma Vs. P. Sakuntallamma and ors.

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-09-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori158

R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1.The decision of this appeal depends solely on the construction of a Will (Ext. A) said to have been executed by one Raghabayya on 19-10-1947. The plaintiff appellant is Raghabayya's brother's daughter. By that Will Rag'habayya bequeathed the disputed properties to his wife's brother P. Subba Rao. It is admitted that the said Subba Rao obtained possession of the properties by virtue of the Will and, after his death, those were inherited by his son Appa Rao who however died on 6-1-1958 issueless -- leaving a widcw Sakuntallamma, (defendant-respondent No. 1). The plaintiff's suit was based mainly on a clause in the Will which, translated in English, is as follows:'My nephew P. Subba Rao and his Purusha Santathis shall be the , claimants under this Will.'2. On behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, Mr. Ramdas urged that by this clause the line of succession was limited to the male heirs of the legatee of the testator and when the line became extinct the properties would ...


Dec 05 1963

State of Orissa Vs. Bira Kishore Naik

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-05-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori202; 30(1964)CLT176; 1964CriLJ325

Misra, J. 1. The appeal is against an order of acquittal of respondent Bira Kishore Naik (accused) who was tried under Sections 409, 467, and 477A, I.P.C. The learned Government Advocate does met press the appeal under Sections 467 and 477A, I.P.C. The appeal is only confined to the charge under Section 409, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that Somanath Naik, the father of the accused, was appointed Extra Departmental Agent of the Paramanandapur Branch Post Office in the district of Sambalpur. The accused was looking after the official duties of the father fully. On 9-4-1959 he received Rs. 609/- from Jogendra Sahu (P.W. 2) for remission by money-order and granted the receipt (Ex. 3) in his own hand-writing and signature. The amount was not entered in any of the registers kept in the post office and the money-order was not remitted. The Inspector of Post Offices (P.W. 1) detected this fact more than a year after. When he brought the matter to the notice of the accused, the latter dep...


Dec 04 1963

State of Orissa Vs. Machindra Majhi and anr.

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-04-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori100; 1964CriLJ422

Misra, J.1. Machindra Majhi (respondent 1 and accused 1) has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code and his wife Lal Dei (respondent-2 and accused-2) of the charge under Section 364, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case may be stated in brief.Accused-1 reclaimed a piece of land called Suktaguva by clearing the jungle. There is a su-perstition amongst the aboriginals, the tribe to which the accused belong, that the land is haunted by evil spirits. A kusum tree stood on the Sunktaguva land. It was not cut down in the process of clearance as it was believed to be the abode of deity Maili Debata. To appease the deity the accused wanted to make a human sacri-fice.On 21-4-1962 in the morning, deceased Tuta, a boy of three years, was playing with two other children Ugra and Bilam, who are respectively the grand-son and grand-daughter of the accused. Urlu Majhi P. W. 2, a boy of 8 years, was grazing his goats under a Mohul tree near about the place where...


Dec 04 1963

Alekh Prasad Behera Vs. the State

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-04-1963

Reported in: 1964CriLJ102

R.K. Das, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 366 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/in default to undergo for five months.2. The appellant was working as a Naib Tahasildar at Basta at the time of alleged occurrence. He had friendly relations with the family of Fakir Panigrahi (P. W. 1) the informant in this case. It is the case of the prosecution that on the evening of 18-3-1962, the appellant along with his peon Srinath went to the house of the P. W. 8 and spent the night there. During his stay there he made a proposal to the members of the family to visit the Pinchabania Mela, which was then being held near about Baste, The informant, however, did not approve the proposal but later on, under the persuasion of his brother, he allowed them to go in the company of accused to see the mela.Accordingly on the following day that is, on 19-3-1962, Sambhunath P. W. 7 his brother and Keshamani P. W. 6 his wife and their daught...


Dec 03 1963

Radha Krishna Mohapatra Vs. Bhuyan Sri Shyam Sundar Mohapatra and ors.

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-03-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori136

G. K. Misra, J.1. Late Rai Bahadur Bhuyan Bhaskar Mohapatra died on 22-6-1938. Plaintiff Luximani was his first wife. Defendants are his sons and step-sons of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 16 of 1959 on 21-3-1959 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, for partition of properties left by her husband. She died on 3-10-1961. The petitioner filed an application on 2-1-1962 for being substituted in her place on the allegation that he was adopted by her on 14-4-1958 and that on 16-7-1958 she executed a registered deed of adoption (Ex. 1) which was signed by her and his natural father. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this application on 28-7-1962. On 30-8-1962 the defendants filed an application for dismissing the suit as it had already abated. On the very day the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order to the effect :'Defendant files a petition praying tnat the plaintiff died on 3-10-61 and one Bishnu Mohan Naik filed a petition for substitution of his ...


Dec 03 1963

Harihar Panda and anr. Vs. Jambabati Pandani and ors.

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-03-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori167

Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a Civil Revision, against the order dated 11-9-63 of the District Judge of Bolangir-Kalahandi, in miscellaneous case No. 16 of 1963.2. Title Suit No. 14 of 1961 was pending in me Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir. That subordinate Judge was transferred as Subordinate Judge in the district of Kalahandi and was stationed at Bhowanipatna by the High Court on 1-8-63. The learned Dt. Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi purporting to act under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code transferred the suit to the subordinate Judge of Kalahandi at Bhowanipatna for disposal. The plaintiff then filed a petition before the District Judge challenging the validity of the transfer (which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 16 of 1963) on the ground that as the Subordinate Judge of Kalahandi had no territorial jurisdiction over the district of Bolangir-Patna he was not competent to try the suit and that the transfer made under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Cod...


Dec 02 1963

Maheswar Parida and ors. Vs. Maiana Bewa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Decided on: Dec-02-1963

Reported in: AIR1964Ori174

Narashimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff No. 2 against the judgment and decree of the Subrodinate Judge of Puri,dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The following genealogical tree is necessary to appreciate the claims of the parties. PERUSHOTTAM PARIDA ______________________|________________________ | | Rama Lakhmana ________________________| | | Nabina Raghu | __________________|__________ | | | | | | Janar- Kanhei Giridhari Dinbandhu | dan (d.4) dead Puna (dead) | (Defdt) ____________|____________ | | | Dharmu Madhaba Madhu=Nayana (Defdt.1) Wife = Rani 'dead = Paraba | | | adopted | Gadadhar (d.3) - Chitra (d,3) | natural mother of | Gadadhar. __________|__________________ | | Ratna-kar Provakar (dead) kar alias = W. Domi (dead) Bhobani | Plff. 1. | Maheswar (plaintiff-2) (Adopted).2. The original plaintiffs in the suit were Ratnakar, Plaintiff No. 1 and Maheswar (Plaintiff No. 2). The disputed properties originall...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial