Orissa Court July 1965 Judgments
Baman Chandra Acharya and ors. Vs. Balaram Acharya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori160
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioners 2 and 3 are respectively the son and daughter of petitioner No. 1. Title suit No. 197 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the suit) was filed by opp- party 1 (Plaintiff) in the Court of the Munsif. Second Court, Cuttack on 5-10-50. for partition. Plaintiff's title is based on purchase of eight pies interest of Madhusudhan Das on 5-10-55 in court auction on 7-5-1956 oi Surendranath Sur and others (defendants 10 (a) to (f)) According to the plaintiff, his vendors defendants 19 (a) to (f) had purchased the property and obtained delivery of possession in 1936 A preliminary decree was passed e.x parle on 4-11-58. The petitioners claimed two annas eleven pies and 1 Biswa interest in the suit properties on the strength of three registered sale deeds executed in favour of the deceased wife of petitioner 1 on 30-5-47. 1-1-49 and 3-1-49 As the tenure vested in the State of Orissa. there was dispute between the plaintiff and the petitioners regarding payment of c...
Tag this Judgment!Bauribandhu Patra and anr. Vs. Sagar Malla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori86
K. Ahmad, C.J.1. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether, if the right claimed by the plaintiff has not ripened into one of easement, his action can be founded in tort for nuisance. The admitted facts of the case are that the parties to the litigation are next door neighbours. The house of the plaintiff stands on plot No. 123 and he has a boundary wall on plot No. 121 and No. 122. Just on the west of his house is plot No. 106 of the defendants. In between these properties of the parties there is a boundary wall of the plaintiff on the extreme western end of his property. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that on 21-8-57 the defendants on the extreme end of their property on the eastern side dug a ditch 30' x 3 1/2 x 1 1/2', and this finding is now concluded in second appeal. It however appears that the two, courts below have very sharply differed on the question of law involved in the present case. The trial Court took the view that as the claim ma...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dhuleswar Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori104; 1966CriLJ570
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, recommending to quash the order of commitment dated, 24-11-1964 passed by Shri R.K. Misra, a Magistrate, 1st Class Baripada in a trial for offences under Sections 409 and 420, I. P. C.2. One Dhuleswar Das was working as a peon of the Block Development Officer, Kuliana. He was deputed to village Kothabila to serve demand notice on some of the parties. He accordingly went to that village and realised a sum of Rs. 142 from one Bhutal Majhi and another sum of Rs. 8 from Hadia Majhi, but did not grant them any receipt, nor did he deposit the amount in the Block Office. The matter came to the notice of the B. D. O. who on 28-4-1964 submitted a report to the Officer-in-charge, Kuliana Police Station. The Officer-in-charge treated the report as F.I.R. and registered a case. After investigation he submitted two charge-sheets against the accused Dhuleswar, one in respect of the sum of Rs. 142 received by the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Latabati Patrani Vs. Dhubani Padhani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori73
G.K. Misra, J.1. Markand and Kumar were brothers. Bidyadhar and Kanhai (defendant No. 4) are sons of Markand. Defendants 2 and 3 are sons of Kumar. Bidyadhar died in 1954 leaving behind two daughters Dhubani (defendant 1) and Latabati (plaintiff). The suit is for partition of Una and Cha schedule-properties on the allegation that in a family partition by metes and bounds, these properties fell to the share of Bidyadhar and on his death both the daughters are entitled to inherit the same. It is unnecessary to give details of actual partition as the concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below, not assailed, in the second appeal, is that the suit properties fell to the share of Bidyadhar in a family partition by metes and bounds. The entire argument has been confined to the sole point whether defendant 1 alone is entitled to inherit the properties of Bidyadhar to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that there was no reliable evidence on either side to come to a defini...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Panigrahi Vs. Lilabati Panigrahi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori148
G.K. Misra, J.1. Gobardhan (defendant No. 2) and Duryodhan Panigrahi (defendant-1) are brothers. Shakuntala (not a party to the suit) is the wife of defendant No 1. Biranchi (husband of plaintiff Lilabati and the son of defendant No. 1 died in 1949. In 1960 plaintiff brought the suit for partition claiming eight annas interest in schedule B property of the plaint which fell to the share of defendant No. 1 in a partition between the two brothers. Defendant No. 1 had claimed that one Ranjit was his adopted son. This argument has been found against by the Courts below. Plaintiff's suit is based on the averment that on the death of Biranchi in 1949, she was entitled to the same interest as her husband had in schedule B property. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit alleging that Shakuntala was a necessary party and is entilled to one-third share. The Courts below negatived the defence contention and decreed the suit for partition of eight annas interest in favour of the plaintiff in schedule...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Md. Samsur
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ227
R.K. Das, J.1. This s a reference made by the Additional Dis-trict M istrate (Judicial), Puri, recommending en-hancement of the sentence passed on the opposite party for his conviction under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.2. On 18-4-1964, the officer-in-charge of the town Police Station, Puri, drew up an F. I. R against the opposite party, Md. Samsur, alleging that the accused by means of a loud-speaker was shouting slogans advocating for observance of Hartal in the town of Puri According to the S. I., the accused incited the people assembled near the Government General Hospital Puri, to observe Hartal and was responsible for causing obstruction to some of the rickshaw pullers moving in the street. The accused was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Court. The Court took cognizance of an offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 341, Penal Code and Rule 41 of the Defence of India Rules.3. The accused admitted his guilt and the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Sahu and ors. Vs. Chaitan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori191; 1966CriLJ1044
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. This case arises out of an order of conviction and sentence of fine passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Cuttack, in respect of seventeen accused petitioners under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 on the charges of alleged illegal impounding of 27 heads of cattle and 24 heads of sheep while these animals were being tended by a cowherd boy on the grazing lands of mouza Chandanpur. It is said that all the accused persons drove away the animals forcibly towards the kine house. The defence is that they had rightly impounded the animals as they damaged the Mung crop of the accused petitioners Sriram Sahu and Dhobei Sahu in their respective kiaris. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners to a fine of Rs. 30 each in default to simple imprisonment for one month each; out of the fine a sum of Rs. 118 was ordered to he paid to the complainant as the sum which he and others paid for releasing the animals by way of compensation.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Parikshit Sai and anr. Vs. Indra Bhoi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori14
Misra, J. 1. Title Suit No. 24 of 1961 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Bolangir, had been fixed to 26-10-62 for hearing. On that day plaintiffs filed hazira. Defendant 1 filed a petition for time on the ground of absence of their witness. The Court passed orders to the effect.'Put up on 31-10-62 for hearing. Parties to come ready.'On 31-10-62 the Court passed the following orders:'Order No. 15 : Plaintiffs filed list of witnesses Defendant 1 files a petition for lime on the ground that his advocate is engaged in Sessions case. Time petition is rejected as frivolous Advocates being busy in another Court is no ground for adjournment Defendants to gel ready at once. Sd D. P. Sharma,Sub Judge.' 'Order No. 16: Plaintiffs ready Defendants are present and left saving that they would engage another lawyer as their lawyer is busy elsewhere The lawyer when sent for says that he has got powers but he had no instruction to act The defendants were given time for 10 minutes. Even though 10 mi...
Tag this Judgment!Kusa Parida and anr. Vs. Baishnab Malik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori60
G.K. Misra, J.1. Nayani Dei is the daughter of Kusa Parida. She married to Kanhu Mallik, who died on the 27th day of Aswin, 1958. A daughter Pema Dei was born to them in Asar 1956. On 17th March, 1961 Kusa Parida filed an application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (Act VIII of 1890) hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, with a prayer that he might be appointed as the guardian of the person and property of the minor, Pema Dei. The averments in the application are that on the death of Kanhu Mallik, his brother Baishnab Mallik, mother Suka and another brother Gopal Mallik, who had been adopted away ill-treated Nayani Dei, who left her husband's place and resided with her father. She was not allowed to bring Pcma Dei with her. In Asarh 1959 Nayani remarried Baidhar Tarai and she has been throughout living with her second husband thereafter. A son has been born to her through the second husband. Dhani Malik, father of Kanhu Malik and the other members of the family tran...
Tag this Judgment!K. Seethamma Vs. K. Kameswar Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ori152
ORDERK. Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the plaintiff against the order D/- 18-12-1963 passed on appeal confirming the order D/ 30-4-1962 passed bv the Trial Court whereby it dismissed the suit under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedue. It appears that the suit was pending for some time and finally on 8-8-1961 it was posted for hearing to 31-8-1961. On that date the plaintiff originally did not turn up nor there was any petition filed on her behalf for adjournment. In fact not even hazira was filed by the learned lawyer appearing for her. On the contrary, the learned lawyer informed theCourt that be had no instruction. Subsequently the plaintiff after some time came to Court. But though she was present she did not even then take any step when the case was taken up for hearing with the result that it was ultimately dismissed for default. Thereafter on 30-9-1961 there was an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »