Orissa Court October 1966 Judgments
Hadibandhu Santara and ors. Vs. Bauribandhu Santara
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori145; 33(1967)CLT232
G.K. Misra, J.1. Bauribandhu (Plaintiff) and Hadibandhu (defendant 1) are brothers. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed property belonged to the ex-Intermediary Satyabadi Ota and his brothers and that it was their private land. He is separate from defendant No. 1 and his sons for more than 25 years. Originally, he cultivated the disputed land as bhag tenant under Satyabadi Ota and his brothers. While he was a bhag tenant, the ex-Intermediary conferred occupancy right on him by commuting the produce rent into cash rent and in evidence thereof accepted rent from him on 11-4-46. Plaintiff thus acquired occupancy right with effect from that date. He was in khas cultivation on payment of rent In 1956. the estate of the ex-Intermediary vested in the State Thereafter plaintiff continued in possession on payment of rent to the Anchal Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were bhag tenants under Satyabadi Ota in respect of other lands There were ill-f...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Naik Vs. Haribandhu Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori194a
Misra, J. 1. The decretal order is that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 have Rs. -/4/6 interest each and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 and defendant No. 2 have Rs. -/-/6 interest each in the joint family property left by Joydeb. Mr. Misra contends that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No 1 are each entitled to Rs. -A/6 interest and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 and defendant No. 2 are each entitled to Rs. -/-/8 Interest, Thus the controversy in this appeal is confined only to fixation of shares Facts relevant to the aforesaid controversy need only be stated Joydeb Naik died on 22-8-59. He hud three wives. The first wife had no issues Ananda (defendant No. 1) and Jasoda (defendant No. 2) are the son and daughter respectively through his deceased second wife Labhanya, Ali Bewa (Plaintiff No. 2) is his third wife. Haribandhu (Plaintiff No. 1) is the son and plaintiffs Nos. 8 to ft are his daughters through plaintiff No. 2. Thus, Joydeb died leaving behind him his widow (Plaintiff No. 2), two s...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Charan Das Vs. Netrananda Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Ori83; 33(1967)CLT735; 1968CriLJ526
ORDERK. Ahmad, C.J.1. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 24-12-64 passed by Sri M. J. Rao, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, setting aside the order of discharge dated 28-4-64 passed in Case no. 157. C. I./64 by the S.D.M., Ken-drapara and directing the S.D.M. to frame the appropriate charge against the accused and to commit him to the Sessions Court.2. The allegation made in the F.I.R. lodged on 12-1-64 by the opposite party was that on 7-1-64 at midnight some unknown person had set fire to his dwelling house in a part of which he had installed a rice-hauler causing damage worth Rs. 7000. The S.I. on investigation did not submit charge-sheet against the petitioner. Thereupon the opposite party filed a complaint petition on 25-9-64 before the learned S.D.M., Kendra-para against the petitioner resulting in the proceeding against him. At the trial the prosecution examined four witnesses including the opposite party as P. W. 1 who was admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Achyatananda Hota and ors. Vs. Khatija Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori156; 33(1967)CLT206
ORDERS. Barman, J.1. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the defendants is; Are the defendants entitled to have inspection of the documents which are mentioned in the list filed under the provision of Order 7 Rule 14(2) of the Civil Procedure Code? The question arose thus: On September 1963 plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage bond dated 15-6-1920 against the defendants including the mortgagees defendants. 2, 3 and 16 who are petitioners in this Civil Revision. In the plaint after verification a list of documents including 9 items was annexed. The description of these Hems of documents included in the list was not clear. For reference the list as annexed to the plaint is quoted as follows:'The documents to be relied upon: 1. Plaint of Gangaprasad if available from court record 2. Copies of records of Civil Court. 3. Settlements Parcha in respect of Khunti Nos. 30 and 68 of mouza Deharipally. 4. Sale deed executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Kalandi Parida and ors. Vs. Sadhu Parida and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori74; 33(1967)CLT768
Das, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The relationship of the parties will appear from the geneology given below: GOPAL PARIDA | ___________________________|___________________________ | | | | Kesari Narottam Hari Bali Widow-Padi Widow-Pata (D. 6) | | | | Bauri Sadhu Aprati Panu bandhu (Pltff.) Widow-Neta Widow-Tila (D.5) | | | Jaladha Natabar | (D. 7) (D.8) __________________|______________________________ | | | | Kalandi Janamu Ghana Dhanu (D.1) (D. 2) (D. 3) (D. 4)2. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Gopal Parida, his four sons. viz.. Kesari, Narottam, Hari and Bali became separate in status, but did not partition the properties by metes and bounds. Kesari died leaving his widow Padi and his son Aprati. Sometime after Aprati died leaving his widow Neta. After the extinction of the line of Kesari, the other three branches are entitled to get one-third share in the family properties. Narottam as the eldest...
Tag this Judgment!Mawaji Ramji and ors. Vs. Premji Kumbhabhai Chanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori158
Misra, J.1. Plaintiff's suit is for recovery of Rs. 6,800 with pendente lite and future interest on the basis of a promissory note (Ex. 1) dated 9-8 1957 for Rs. 5,000/- executed by deceased Ramji Haridas (hereinafter to be referred to as the deceased) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons Defendant No. 3 is the widow and defendant No. 4 is the son's son of the deceased. In the plaint, a bald case was advanced that the defendants as heirs and successors of the deceased are in possession of vast properties left by him and did not pay up the dues despite repeated demands The cause of action was alleged to have arisen on 9-8-1954 when the loan was advanced and on 9-8-1957 when Ex 1 was renewed. At the evidence stage plaintiff advanced the story that in his presence at Jatni Ex. 1 was executed and the deceased put the dates thereon.The averments in the written statement are of a general nature. Though pleas were taken that the suit was barred by limitation and was defective for non-joinder ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›