Orissa Court October 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.
Dula Dei and ors. Vs. Jadi Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori113
S. Barman, J.1. Defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 being purchasers from the original defendant No. 1 Hara Dei are appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by plaintiffs Jadi Bewa and Bhalu Dei for partition and recovery of possession from defendants of the plaintiffs respective 1/3rd share each in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. One Bhikari Malik was the original owner of the suit property. He is said to have died 25 or 26 years ago leaving him surviving three daughters, namely plaintiffs Jadi Bewa, Bhalu Dei and defendant No. 1 Hara Dei. The plaintiffs' case is that during Bhikari's lifetime he got all his three daughters married. After Bhikari's death the three daughters are said to have divided the movables but not the immovables. The plaintiffs had been married at a place distant from the village while defendant No. 1 Hara Dei who was married near their village enjoyed the immovable properties. It is said that taking advantage of this position defendant No. 1 H...
Bhai Ramji Vs. Govinda Rantai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori121
S. Barman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim made by the plaintiff Govinda Rantai under a raiyati patta and permanent lease executed by defendant No. 3 Jaya Jena in respect of the suit lands. Defendant 1 is an auction purchaser at a certain Court sale in an execution case in which defendant No. 2 is the decree holder and defendant No. 3 is the judgment debtor. The auction purchaser defendant No. 1 is the appellant herein.2. The suit B schedule lands being plot No. 78, holding No. 9 with an area of 1.26 decimals at village Titilagarh, District Bolangir, originally belonged to defendant No. 3 Jaya Jeni. The said B schedule lands and other lands in A schedule were all defendant Jaya jani's Gounti Rayati lands. Defendant No. 2 Raghunath Mahajan had a money claim and obtained a money decree against defendant Jaya Jani. In Execution Case No. 37 of 1955 the decree-holder defendant No. 2 attached the suit lands. At Court sale the appellant auction purchaser defendant No. 1 purchased the s...
Gundicha Routho Vs. Eswara Rautho
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori96
Das, J.1. This defendant's appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. Plaintiff-respondent Eswar and Raghunath are two divided brothers. The appellant Gundicha is the son of Haghunath. It is the caste of the plaintiff that in the family partition ho got the properties mentioned in Schedule A and he himself acquired the properties mentioned in Schedules B and C, the suit house, out of his own funds. He wanted to stay with his only surviving daughter Jamhu for the remaining part of his life. His brother Raghunath, however, dissuaded him from doing so and promised that he would keep his son Gimdicha (appellant) and his wife and child with the plaintiff so that they would look after him. Accordingly the plaintiff brought Gundicha and his wife and child to his house in 1952 and executed a dead (Ex. 1) on 6-5-1932, the main condition of the dated being that Gundicha will look after his comforts, but instead of doing that he forcibly dispossessed the pl...
Paluni Dei Vs. Rathi Mallick and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori111
Misra, J.1. The sole point involved in this appeal is whether defendant 2 is entitled to any relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts relevant for the appreciation of this point need only be mentioned. One Kelu had four sons--Kashi, Ananda, Nilei and Bholi. Paluni (defendant 2) is the daughter of Bholi. Chanda (defendant 1) is the widow of Dinei, son of Nilei. Keluni (defendant 3) is the widow of Kurup, son of Ananda. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of Kashi. Plaintiff purchased Ka schedule property from defendant No. 1 by a registered sale-deed, dated 14-11-1953 (Ex. 1/a) Plots Nos. 85 and 543, in respect of which relief under Section 4 of the Act is claimed, constitute portions of Ka schedule land. The concurrent findings of both the Courts are that the plaintiff is a stranger purchaser and that defendant No. 2 is a resident of village Jagannathpur where she resides with her husband, but at times comes with her husband to village Ba...
Rajkumar Lakshminarayan Bhanja Deo Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bih ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR457(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM C.J. - These six references made by the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal are heard together, and will be disposed of in one judgment.The question referred to this court for opinion in all these references is as follow :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 24,000, received by the assessee during each of the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 as maintenance allowance and/or political pension, was not exempt from income-ta ?'The applicant is the younger brother (Chotray) of the Ruler of Keonjhar, which was one of the former Orissa States which merged with the Province of Orissa with effect from January 1, 1948, in pursuance of the well known merger agreement. As the younger brother of the Ruler he was entitled to maintenance and this was fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month by the Keonjhar Durbar some years prior to the date of merger. This amount was exempted from payment of inc...
Ratnakar Das Vs. Arakhita SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori135; 1965CriLJ111
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order of Sri V. S. Rao, Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, acquitting the accused persons who were tried in his court for offences under Sections 147 and 323 I. P. C. The material facts are as follows :2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant on 28-3-1963 the police investigated a case under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and submitted final report, declaring the case to be true but the evidence to be insufficient for chargesheet. While the investigation was pending, however, the complainant filed a protest petition before the Executive S.D. O. who called for the case diary, heard the parties on 20-8-1963 and directed the filing of chargesheet against all the accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. In pursuance of this order, the Police submitted charge-sheet before the Judicial S. D. M. on 30-9-1963 and the S. D. M. Judicial after taking cognizance transferred the case for trial to the file of Sri V. S. Rao Magis...
Narada Bharata Reddy Vs. Sunkuru Mukunda Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori156
Narasimham, C.J.1. This appeal and revision arise out of an interlocutory order dated 20-8-1963 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The aggrieved party was not quite sure as to whether an appeal or revision lay and hence he took the precaution of filing a revision as well as an appeal. They are both disposed of in this judgment. 2. One L. Pappayya died some time in 1932 leaving some properties and heirs as described in the genealogical tree given below :-- Papayya(died in 1932) married Dalamma (died in 1962) _____________________________________|_______________________________________ | | | | | Mahaluxmi Chandramma Kanthamma Narada Bharath Gangamma-chandr- (dead) (dead) (dead) Ready ayya(died) | | (Objector) | Narayanaswami Kumari Dalayya died 6-5-1963 ________________|_________ | | | Minor Minor Minor The appellant petitioner Narada Bharata Reddy was first married to Kanthamma and after her death, to Chandramma. After the dea...
Ambai Majhi Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ851
G.K. Misra, J.1. Ambai Majhi (appellant) has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Though he has been convicted under Section 201, I.P.C., no separate sentence has been passed. The appellant was first married to one Kapura Del through whom he has a son Bhuchand Majhi (P.W. 6). Later on he married Sake (the deceased). After the second marriage, the first wife left the house and lived with her brother in another village; but P.W. 8, aged 6 years, remained with the father. In the night of Gamha Purnima day (5.8.63) there was a folk dance. The appellant was. ringing and tin deceased joined the chorus. As the deceased somewhat faltered in the chorus, the appellant asked her to go back home. As she expressed unwillingness, the appellant forcibly took her back home. At home he asked her to serve food. As she refused, he assaulted her with a bamboo stick. After she fell down, he throttled her and pierced an arrow on the right side of her chest. On the...
Ganga Devi Vs. Krushna Prasad Sharma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Ori194
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff opposite party (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between himself and the defendant petitioner (wife) by a decree of divorce, on grounds of her unsound mind and bad character. After filing the written statement, the defendant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act asking for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month, arrears of maintenance at Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 5000 towards expenses of the proceedings. She averred that she had no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the expenses of the suit filed against her. She alleged that the plaintiff is a rich business man having considerable immovable properties in lands and houses and that he possesses business of jewellery, spices and cosmetics etc. She estimated the average income of the plaintiff at Rs. 10,000 per month. The plaintiff challenged the af...
Nanigopal Chakravarty Vs. Renubala Chakravarty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori154
G.K. Misra, J.1. The respondent (wife) obtained a decree for divorce against the appellant (husband) on 8-4-1960. The decree declared that the wife and the husband stood divorced from that day and the appellant was to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3000/- within a month from that day failing which she was to recover the amount by execution. She had claimed a gross sum towards permanent alimony on the ground that she being a Brahmin would not be able to remarry. In the judgment the learned District Judge did not give the basis as to how he granted a gross sum of Rs. 3000/- towards permanent alimony. Admittedly the appellant has not made any payment in satisfaction ot the decree. The respondent started an execution case which is pending. She remarried in January 1961 to one Chittaranjan Goswami, On 8-9-1962 the appellant filed an application with a prayer that the decree dated 8-4-1960 be rescinded or modified under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›