Orissa Court January 1964 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.
Lala Ram Chandra Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Sasibala Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori228; 30(1964)CLT329
S. Barman, J.1. Plaintiffs are appellants from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, whereby the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiffs for prosecution in proper Court on the ground that the Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because one of the defendants in the suit is a Liquidator of Puri Bank.2. The matter arises thus -- On March 1, 1949 defendants 1 and 2 executed a mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiffs' father for Rs. 300/-. Puri Bank had obTained a money decree against the mortgagors (defendants 1 and 2). In execution of the said money decree the mortgaged properties were put to sale at the instance of Puri Bank in Execution Case No. 14 of 1951. On April 16, 1960 defendant No. 4 purchased the property in execution sale. On February 27, 1962 a mortgage suit was filed by the plaintiffs-mortgagees against the legal representatives of the mortgagors, purchaser in execution sale defendant No. 4 and attaching creditor Puri Ba...
State of Orissa Represented by Collector of Ganjam Vs. Pitambar Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori233
R.K. Das, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa against the reversing judgment of the Additional District Judge of Ganjam in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and damages.2. The plaintiff purchased the suit lands from different persons by registered sale-deeds, Exts. 2, 2/a, 2/b and 2/c dated 104-1938, 24-3-1941, 15-3-1938 and 9-9-1946 respectively, covering different items of the suit-property as mentioned in the plaint-schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that his predecessor-in-interest and after them the plaintiff himself has been in possession of the suit-lands for more than one hundred years in their own right and have thus acquired title by adverse possession against the State. There were previously thatched houses on the suit-sites which the plaintiff demolished with a view to construct pucca houses and 'aid foundation therefor over the entire area covering all the items. Thereafter the Berhampur Municipality issued' notice allegi...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Madhusudan Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori198
R.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by tie Union of India, representing the South, Eastern Railways, against the confirming judgment of the Sub. Judge of Sambalpur dated 28th July, 1962, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of RS. 3999/- from the appellant.2. The suit was filed by respondent Madhusudhan Sahu, the plaintiff in this case. According to him, he was carrying on business in cloth under the name and style of 'Orissa Cloth Stores' which was previously known as 'Madhusudhan 'Ramkumar Mahalaxmi Bastra Bhandar'. On 22-2-57 he placed an order for our bales of cloth on Messrs Shewchandri Muralidhar of Calcutta to be delivered at Rourkela Railway Station on South Eastern Railways.The consignment was despatched from How-rah on 2-2-57 under R/R No. 37519 in the name of the consignee Madhusudhan Ramkumar. On 19-2-57 the consignee took delivery of only two bales and as there was shortage of two bales, he was given a shortage certificate (Ext. 5) by the Station Master, Rourkela. On...
Ramchandra Biharilal Firm Vs. Mathuramohan Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori239
S. Barman, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant, This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, and possession of 12.88, acres described in Schedule Ka.2. The plaintiff's case is this; The suit land originally belonged to one Narahari Mohapatra, grand-father of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 Ramchandra Beharilal, a firm, obtained a money decree against Narahari. Defendant No. 1 put the suit land in court sale in execution of the said decree and purchased the same. On January 18, 1956 by a registered sale deed Ext. a/1 defendant No. 1 sold the suit land 12.88 acres in area for consideration of Rs. 600/-. It was agreed that Rs. 300/- would be paid immediately and possession would be delivered; that the balance of Rs. 300/- would be paid one year after; then tha sale deed itself would be delivered after such payment of the entire consideration money. In pursuance of the said agreement Rs. 300/- was immediately paid and possession was delivered. Th...
Ambarish Misra Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori215
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an, order of the Collector of Bolangir dated 4-6-1963 in Estate Abolition Review case No. 8 of 1962-63 reviewing and modifying an order passed by his predecessor on 25-5-1955 in Estate Abolition Review Case No. 73 of 1954-55.2. The zamindari of Loisinga in Bolangir district, of which the proprietor was one Dewan Chitrabhanu Singh, was taken over by Government and then one Ambarish Misra (who is the petitioner, before us) filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act in respect of 289.54 acres of land in village Bendra within the said zamindari. His case was that the said lands were actually let out to him by the zamindar and that he was in possession. The Zamindar Chitrabhanu however contended that Ambarish was not a tenant but a mere mortgagee and that under Section 7(1) (c) of the Estate Abolition Act (as it then stood) the lands should, be deemed to have been settled with hi...
Padma Charan Mohapatra Vs. Superintendent of Police, Cum Taxing Author ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori71; 30(1964)CLT271
Narasimham, C. J.1. This is a petition by the owner of a transport vehicle ORS. 2392 against an order under Section 12-A of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Orissa (Act XXIII of 1962) levying a penalty of twice the amount of the tax on the petitioner on the ground that he did not pay the tax due on the said vehicle within the period of 15 days from the due date of payment. The order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who has stated in his order that the due date of payment of the tax in respect of the said vehicle was 10-10-1962 and that the tax was actually paid only on 25-10-62. He however held that under Section 12-A of the said Act the period of 15 days would end by 24-10-1962 and that consequently there was a delay of one day.2. The question for consideration is whether the words 'within 15 days from the due date of payment' occurring in Section 12-A (1) of the said Act would include the day on which the tax became due or would mean 15 clear ...
Govinda Sabat Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori189
S. Barman, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. The District Board, Ganjam, was the original plaintiff. After the passing of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, District Boards were abolished and their properties vested in the State of Orissa. The suit out of which, this appeal arises was a money suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a decree for Rs. 4383.39 nP. for balance of dues from the defendant as lessee of weekly market tolls.2. The facts stated are these: A Hat sits at village Hinjili once a week. Ganjam : District Board used to collect toll from all dealers in goods in the market. A particular tariff is prescribed under the Madras Local Boards Act applicable in the area The right to collect toll is leased out to the highest bidder. There are some sheds at Hinjili Hat owned by Dist. Board. Any shopkeeper who uses these huts has to pay rent. On January 21, 1955 the District Board publicly auctioned the right to collect the Hinjili market tolls for official year 1955-56 (...
Haribandhu Mohanty Vs. Harekrushna Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori220
S. Barman, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the suit lands acquired by adverse possession and permanent injunction.2. Defendant Haribandhu Mohanty purchased lands,374 decimals in area situate in Cuttack town. It is saidthat the suit lands Were not fit for building as they werelow lands with ditches. In 1936 defendant found thatsome people had put up huts on the suit lands. Thereupon the defendant filed a suit being Title Suit No. 378of 1936 against the present plaintiffs Harekrushna Beharaand others (hereinafter referred to as the Beheras) forevicting them and getting vacant possession. On May 13,1937 the said suit was compromised. Under the compromise 68 decimals were given to the said Beheras whowere defendants therein. It is said that the remaining306 decimals out of 374 decimals purchased by defendantHaribandhu Mohanty as aforesaid were given to Haribandhu Mohanty who was the plai...
Banamali Mohapatra Vs. Bajra Nahak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori204; 30(1964)CLT379; 1964CriLJ326
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a petition by the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cri. P. C. for quashing the proceeding which is now pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-First Class Magistrate of Chatrapur.2. The petitioner had brought & suit (T. S. No. 173/1953) against the members of the opposite party and their predecessors in title for a permanent injunction restraining them from entering, on the disputed land. Though that suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif on 9-5-1957, on appeal the District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsif and decreed the plaintiff's suit. There was also a Second appeal before the High Court (Second Appeal No. 205 of 1959) in which the District Judge's order was upheld. The plaintiff's title to the disputed property was confirmed and the order of injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the land was also confirmed. The Judgment of the High Court was pronounced on 24th March 1961. The...
Bhagaban Panda and ors. Vs. Bairagi Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Ori165
G.K. Misra, J. 1. The villagers of Jaypur Sashan, Shyamsundarpur, Sayadnagar, Khakarwal, Panisimulia, Govindpur and some other villages have brought the suit under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. against the villagers of Srirampur, Mirjapur, Krushnadaspur, Chakradhanpur and some other villages under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. Plaintiffs asked for a declaration that they are entitled to use the entire volume of water of River Sriram for the purpose of irrigating their lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from diverting the course of the river into a new channel excavated by the defendants. The map (Ex. 7) has been made a part of the decree. The facts stated here are with reference to Ex. 7. Defendants had brought title suit No. 340 of 1940 in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore, for a declaration that the present plaintiffs had no right to put dams in the bed of river Sriram at points A, B and C. The defendants lost the suit, and true appeal No. 306 of 1941 filed by them was...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »