Orissa Court July 1964 Judgments
State of Orissa Vs. Kaushalya Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori38; 1965CriLJ321
Misra, J.1. The respondent has been acquitted of a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. The prosecution case is as follows: She was married to the deceased 3 years before. They were quarrelling at times on domestic affairs. The deceased sometimes threatened to kill the accused. Their own house was under construction. They were staying in a portion of the house of Ganeswar Patra (P.W. 5) in separate apartment. Pravakar Patra, the minor brother of the accused, aged about 10 years, was residing with them. On the night of the 11th March 1962 the accused served wet rice (Pakhal) and potato chatni to the deceased. The chatni tested bitter. The deceased took only 2 to 3 mouthful of rice with the chatni and, on suspicion of poisoning, did not take further food. The: residue of the chatni was taken by him on a Sal leaf to his uncle Kanhei Patra (P. W. 7) and P. W. 5, the father of P. W. 7. He complained to them that the accused served the chatni which tasted bitter. The residue of the chatni was ke...
Tag this Judgment!Manu Biswal and ors. Vs. Mst. Lata Biswalani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori13
Barman, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit for partition of joint family properties. 2. The parties are members of a family governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. One Bhagaban Biswal had two sons Cheru and defendant No. 1 Manu. In Cheru's branch are his son defendant No. 5 Debadhi; plaintiff No. 1 Lata, wife of Debadhi, and plaintiff No. 2 Jayananda and plaintiff No. 3 Gayadhar who are the sons of Debidhi. In Manu's (defendant No. 1) branch are defendant No. 1 Manu himself; Manu's son defendant No. 3 Jugal and defendant No. 4 Gurucharan who are sons of defendant 2 Dolgobinda. The plaintiffs claim partition by metes and bounds in respect of A and B Sen. lands into two equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No. 5. It is said that defendant No. 5 Debadhi had previously in 1959 filed a partition suit being T. S. No. 3 of 1959 against defendant No. 1 Manu Biswal in the Court of Munsif, Bonaigar...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Sahu and anr. Vs. Bhimsen Naik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori59
Barman, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for determination of a female Hindu Widow's right under a compromise decree in a certain partition suit in respect of property allotted to her to be held by her in severally in lieu of her undivided share in the joint estate in the manner provided in the decree.2. Defendants 1 and 2 are appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the sale effected by his widowed paternal grand-mother defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding on the plaintiff beyond the life time of defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa and for issue of permanent injunction against defendant No. 2 restraining her from further transferring the suit, land's in future as prayed for in the plaint.3. The facts so far as material for the present purpose are shortly these:Defendant No. 2 Dulei Bewa is a widow of one Satura Naik deceased...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Jagabandhu Domb and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1964
Reported in: 30(1964)CLT537; 1965CriLJ296
S. Barman, J.1. The accused respondents Jagabandhu Domb and Dalibandhu Domb who are brothers were charged with the offence of having committed murder of their elder brother Sambaru Domb in course of a family quarrel among themselves on October 9, 1961 at village Dhangidail, district Koraput. They both were convicted under Sections 334 and 335, Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused hurt and grievous hurt on provocation and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine or Rs. 50/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for another fifteen days. They both were acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. This Government Appeal is against the said order of acquittal of both the accused respondents of the charge of murder.2. The prosecution case shortly stated is this : On October 9, 1961 at about 4 or 5 P.M. the accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathi and tangia as a result of which the deceased died. The quarrel was near the h...
Tag this Judgment!Dandapani Sahu Vs. Kshetra Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori37
G.K. Misra, J. Defendant 1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for partition. The following geneology would show the relationship of the parties. MANI SAHU _____________|_______________________________ | | | Ratan Sahu Gadadhar Sahu Dasarathi Sahu | | | Dandapani Kelei Sahu _________|________________ Sahu(Deft.1) (Plff.2) | | Ladu Sahu Kehetr =W.Bauri Bewa Sahu(Plff.1) | ________________|___________________ | | Bhramar Bhagabat Sahu(Deft.2) Sahu(Deft.3)Plaintiff-2 claims one-third share and plaintiff-1 one-sixth share. The defence case is that there was a previous partition by metes and bounds. The Courts below concurrently negatived the defence plea and decreed the suit for partition. 2. Mr. Pal contended that the learned lower appellate court misconstrued the documentary evidence on record, namely, Exs. C/2 and C/1. I have gone through those documents carefully and am not inclined to agree with Mr. B.K. Pal that these documents were misconstrued. None of th...
Tag this Judgment!Panchei Bewa Vs. Banchhanidhi Padhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori53
G.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant 1. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed land which the plaintiffs purchased from the husband of defendant 1 by a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) dated 22-3-1948 for Rs. 80/-. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants dispossessed them in August, 1954. The defence case is that the sale-deed is not genuine and not for consideration.2. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the sale deed was genuine and was duly executed. The trial Court found that There was no payment of consideration, but it decreed the suit on the finding that title had passed despite non-payment of consideration. It accordingly granted declaration of title but directed that possession was to be delivered to the plaintiffs subject to payment of Rs. 80/-. There was no decree for damages.Against the trial Court's decree plaintiffs filed an (sic) (No. ?) appeal. Defendant 1 filed an appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kelei Mallik Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori16
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a voter of the Jaipur Notified Area Council against the order of the Returning Officer of the said Council declaraing him to be disqualified under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Orissa Municipal Act, from standing as a candidate for election to the said Council. It is admitted that though the petitioner can sign his name in Driya he cannot read and write either Oriya, or Hindi or English. Clause (iii) of Sub-section (i) of Section 16 says that a person who is unable to read and write either English, Oriya or Hindi is disqualified From Standing for election to a seat in the Municipality in the State of Orissa. For this purpose a notified area council stands on the same footing as a Municipality.2. Mr. Palit for the petitioner urged that the literacy test laid down in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, that there was no reas...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudhan Mohapatra Vs. Gobind Sabat and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ori54
R.K. Das, J.1. This second appeal by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. Bhagaban Mohapatra had two sons Ramhari and Arta. Ramhari died in 1944, leaving his widow Sebati. He had no issue. Arta died in 1942 leaving behind three sons, Madhu, Govinda and Nitai the defendants 1, 3 and 5 respectively. Ramesh, defendant No. 2 is the son of Madhu and Padma Charan (D-4), is the son of Govind. Ramhari and Arta separated in mess and property fifty years back. Ramahari built a temple with his own funds and installed the deities Radhakrishna and Lalita therein and by a deed dated 8-11-21 endowed about seventy acres of land in favour of the said deities. On 19-1-42 Ramahari executed a will (Ext. 2) wherein he bequeathed all his properties, except those endowed in favour of the aforesaid deities. From the title of the Will (Ext. 2) it appears as if Radhakrishna is the only legatee but when we go to the contents of the document, we find disposit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›