Orissa Court August 1965 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.
Mayadhar Subudhi Tana and anr. Vs. Orissa Board of Wakfs and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori208
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. The Orissa Board of Wakfs is the plaintiff The suit is for eviction of defendants 1 to 4 from the disputed land and for recovery of possession Admittedly that the disputed properly is the Wakf property of defendant 5 (Pir Saheb) Late Rafique Md. leased out the disputed land by a registered permanent lease dated 19-12 1949 in favour of defendant 1. Defendants 2 In 4 are the brothers of defendant 1 Plaintiff admits that defendants 1 to4 are in possession ever since the date of lease. The validity of the lease is, however, challenged on the ground that it was effected on false recitals regarding the necessities of defendant5 and that permanent lease could not have been effected in law beyond three years in respect of the suit property which is an agricultural land Defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit challenging the averments in the plaint. It is unnecessary to give details of the defence as they are not relevant for the disposal of the Civil Revision. After evidenc...
Jasoda Sahuani and anr. Vs. Satyabhama Sahuani and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori240
ORDERK. Ahmad, C.J.1. These two applications in revision arise out of the same order dated 22-10-64 passed by the Subordinate Judge in title Suit No. 69 of 1963 which is still pending for disposal. C. R. No. 310 of 1964 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, but at the time of hearing that has not been pressed. Therefore, it is dismissed Then remains the other C. R. No. 320 of 1904. That has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 2. It is directed against the portion of the aforesaid order which reads that :'The defendant No. 2 who is an applicant for some paddy is not entitled to any as her maintenance is not binding upon those to whom the suit property has come by means of succession. Hence her petition is rejected.'It is not denied that defendant No. 2 is the widow of Bankanidhi, the brother of Baneh-hanidhi. Bankandhi died in 1921 issueless leaving behind him his widow Annapurna, defendant No. 2. He was joint with his brother Banchhanidhi. Therefore, on his death the pr...
Nanda Kishore Panigrahi and ors. Vs. Commissioner for Hindu Religious ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori89
Ahmad, C.J. 1. The Plaintiff-petitioners having lost their suit in this Court by a judgment of reversal in First Appeal No. 38 of 1962, have now filed this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, substantially under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution of India, read with Sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Along with their application the petitioners have also filed a petition under Order 45, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, with a prayer that a reference be made to the Court of the first instance, that is the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack for determination of the value of the suit properties both in the Court of first instance and the Court of appeal.3. The petitioners are admittedly the present marfatdars of the Debottar Estate and the temple whereto the litigation in this case relates. There are now, in all, about 15 acres of agricultural lands endowed to the Deity installed in the temple, namely, Shri Kunja Behari Deb. The main qu...
Sibapada Ghose Mandal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori124
Ahmad, C.J. 1. The parties to all these six applications are the same; they arise out of substantially the same facts, and involve common Questions of law; therefore, they have all been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The rule in all these case was obtained by the common petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a common order dated 11-10-1963 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in proceedings arising out of 6 Public Demands Recovery cases numbered as Certificate Misc. Cases Nos. 1207 of 1950-51, 12 of 1951-52, 3991 of 1951-52, 154 of 1953-54, 2204 of 1952-53 and 175 of 1963-64. By that order, the Member, Board of Revenue held that-'Certificate under Section 46(2) was sent to the Collector. From then it becomes a due payable to the Collector. As far as the certificate officer is concerned, he treats it as an arre...
Bairagi Mekap and anr. Vs. Jagannath Temple Managing Committee
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ori96
ORDERK. Ahmad, C.J.1. This Civil Revision is by the plaintiffs. It is directed against the order dated 14-3-1964 passed by Shri B. R. Rao, District Judge, Puri, whereby the learned District Judge has set aside the order of the trial court allowing interim injunction as prayed for and thereby restraining the defendant from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs as claimed in the plaint. The suit is still pending for disposal. That has been instituted for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 Bairagi Mekap representing all the members of the Mekap Nijog and plaintiff No. 2 Madhusudhna Khuntia representing all the members of the Khuntia Nijog of Lord Jagannath have the exclusive right to collect Bhetas or Pindikas in the temple of Lord Jagannath from the Aruna Stambha to the Ratnasinhasan in Thalias, Parakha and Jharis and for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendant temple committee from interfering with this right of the plaintiffs and from collecting the Bhetas or Pindikas ...
Prabhulal Potadia Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ228
ORDERR.K. Das, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 92 of the Indian Factories Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. in default to undergo R. t. for one month, by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack. On appeal the conviction and sentence was maintained by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.2. On 28-1-62, the Inspector of Factories, Orissa, inspected a brick kiln of the accused petitioner, standing on the Cuttack, Bhubaneswar road. He found a number of persons working there all engaged in the process of manufacturing bricks. The Inspector of Factories found the kiln to be a 'factory' within the meaning of the Indian Factories Act, 1948, but the same was being run without registration' and without the written approval of the Chief Inspector of Factories. He therefore submitted a prosecution report (Ext. 1) against the petitioner and after cognizance was taken under Section 92 of the Indian Factories Act, the accused was summoned to stand a trial.3. The plea of the acc...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›