Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori111
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgmentof the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur dismissing nis suit tor arrears of salary against the Pariakimedi municipality on the sole ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. The plaintiff was an accountant in the Pariaki-medi Municipality. He was suspended on 5-1-1951 ana dismissed from service on 1-4-51. He tiled an appeal toGovernment against that order of dismissal, but that appeal was dismissed on 1-3-56 (see Ext. H). In the meantime sometime in the year 1955 he fiied a petition uncier Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court (see Ext. 1) O.J.C. 286/55 which was disposed of by a Bench of thisCourt on 11-7-1957 (reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 222 snyam Sundar Misra v. State of Orissa). The Bench held that the order of dismissal passed by the Municipality was in contravention of the Rules regarding the conditions or service of Municipal servants and hence set it aside. I hereafter there was some correspond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori37; 30(1964)CLT229; 1964CriLJ210
Misra, J.1. These two appeals arise out of S. T. Nos. 68/10 (S) of 1961 and 8/11 (S) of 1962 tried by he Assistant Sessions Judge of Sambalpur Sundargarh. Though the incident was one, two different cases were started as respondents 1 to 8 were arrested on or before 1-2-61 and respondents Pareswar Sindur alias Ghasi and Sankar Sindur alias Ghasr were arrested on 24-7-1961. However there was one trial. The prosecution case is that in the night of 21st January 1961 respondents committed a dacoity in the house of P. W. 2 (Abhimanyu Thakur) and in course of such dacoity properties worth about Rs. 2000/- had been stolen from the house of P. W. 2, and the owner of the house was assaulted in his courtyard. P. W. 4 saw from the kitchen peeping through the bamboo holes respondents 2 and 8 assaulting P. W. 2. A hulla was made by P. W. 2 and many villagers gathered in the village Danda. P. W. 5 peeped outside through the holes of the doors of his bed room and identified respondents 2 and 5 in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori98
G. K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. Plaintiffs case is as follows : The opposite party (defendant) has a building in Cuttack town. By two mortgage deeds dated 31st March 1953 and 14th October 1953, the defendant mortgaged, the house in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 11,000/-. On 1st December 1953, defendant executed an agreement to sell the house to the plaintiff for Rs. 13,000/-. On the very day, defendant took Rs. 500/- and put the plaintiff in possession. On nth March 1954 defendant took a further sum of Rs. 500/- which was verbally agreed to be adjusted towards the balance consideration. It was settled between the parties at the time of agreement to sell that Rs. 12,000/- would be set off towards the consideration and the defendant would receive the balance of Rs. 1000/- only and the plaintiff was to bear all the costs of the sale-deed and that the sale deed would be executed a month after the final disposal of the Maintenance Suit No. 13 of 1951 filed against the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori134
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner. The facts leading to the Civil Revision may be stated in a narrow compass. Money suit No. 28 of 1961 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bolangir was filed on 1st August, 1961 with deficit court-fee. Time was granted to pay the deficit court-fee till 24th August 1961 in the first instance and then again till 12th September 1961. On the latter date the Court passed orders to the effect--'Deficit court-fee not filed nor any requisites filed. Plaintiff is absent on repeated calls. No steps taken by him. His pleader is also not present. . Plaint is rejected for non-payment of deficit court-fee.'just a day after on 13th September 1961 the pleader for the plaintiff filed a petition for restoration of the suit under Section 151 C. P. C. The pleader Sri Sidheswar Sai himself filed an affidavit solemnly affirming that though he himself took the adjourned date for 12th September 1961, due to inadvertence he entered the date in his diary for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori33; 29(1963)CLT536
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioners are the three daughters of Rama. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties. RAMA (Widow Rani-Defdt,') | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Kantha Bata Krushna Dulei Suka Madha (son) (son) (son) (daughter) (daughter) (daughter) | (D.1) | widow Duryodhan Bimali (Defdt.2). (plaintiff)A preliminary decree was passed on 3-7-58 and admittedly Rani (defendant No. 3) got 1/4th share in the preliminary decree in a division with three sons, each one of whom sot one share. Rani died on 70-10-60. On her death the petitioner filed an application (that?) the 1/4th share of the total property declared in favour of Rani in the preliminary decree was a property belonging to Rani, and so the petitioners are entitled to a share out of it by succession under the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff opposed the claim on the ground that until final partition by metes and bounds Rani had no vested title in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori49
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts decreeing the plaintiffs suit and declaring that a sale deed executed by the plaintiff on 28-1-1958 for Rs. 500/- in favour of the defendant was invalid and did not convey any title. The plaintiff belongs to Tanla caste in the sub division of Nayagarh which was a former Feudatory State of Orissa. He was in possession of the disputed property as Tokari Jagiri land.2. It was found by the two lower courts that on 28th January 1958 he executed a sale deed con-veyingi the said property to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 500/-. The defendant is admittedly a high caste Hindu. Though the two lower courts held that the sale deed was validly executed and there was consideration, they nevertheless held that the transaction was invalid on account of contravention of Rule 3 of the Nayagarh Land Transfer Rules. That Rule reads as follows:'3. No land or other immoveable property of an aboriginal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1964Ori73; 29(1963)CLT548
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa against the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts dismissing their suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2600/- from the respondents. 2. Respondent No. 1 (Harichandan Babu) is a resident of Bhowanipatna which was part of the former (sic) state of Kalahandi. sometime in 1946 the tnen Ruler of Kalahandi agreed to bear the cost of giving him train-ing in the Imperial Dairy Research Institute, Bangalore, on matters relating to Dairy Farming. The, total sum wmcn the Ruler agreed to pay for this purpose was Rs. 2600/-. He also obtained from respondent No. 1 an agreement (Ex. / dated 5-1-1946) undertaking to serve the State of Kalahandi, for a period of not less Wan 15 years after completing his studies in the said institution. The Respondent further undertook that if he failed to fulfil any of the terms of the agreement he would refund to the Ruler the sum of Rs. 2600/-. Respondent no. 2 agreed to be the surety for respondent 1....
Tag this Judgment!