Orissa Court August 1966 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.
Banchhanidhi Maharatha Vs. Srinibass Paikroy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori62; 33(1967)CLT38; 1967CriLJ637
ORDERG.K. Misra, J.1. Banchhanidhi Maharatha (Petitioner) filed a complaint on 25-11-64 under Sections 147 and 379. I. P. C. against Srinibash Paikroy (opp. party-1) and 17 others alleging that at about 6 A. M. on 28-11-64 they cut away the paddy which ho grew on the disputed land, Petitioner's case is that he looked after the properties of Orami Math in village Orami in Khurda Sub-division and cultivated the lands of the said Math On the date of occurrence, while he was absent from the village, opposite party No. 1 with the help of a large number of persons forcibly cut away the paddy. The complainant was examined on oath under Section 200, Cr. P. C. on 27-11-64 The complaint petition was sent to the officer in charge, Khurda Police Station for enquiry and report under Section 202. Cr. P. C. The Officer-in-charge examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant and some of the accused persons. He perused a registered sale deed executed by one Luxmipriya Debi on 28-10-64 in favour o...
Govinda Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: 33(1967)CLT1091; (1968)IILLJ326Ori
G.K. Misra, J.1. Most of the facts are admitted. A chronological chart has been filed by Sri Pal mentioning all important facts. In correct-ness has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. The essential facts, at mentioned therein, are as follows.2. Under Section 10(5) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Madras Act 3 of 1895) hereinafter referred to as the Act (which has been replaced by Orissa Act 12 of 1962) with effect from 1 February 1963), the plain-tiff was appointed in 1935 to discharge the duties of the office of a Karji as the heredatary karji, Kashi Parida, was a minor. Kashi Parida died in 1949. He was succeeded by another minor Karji, Kashi Parida, on 8 July 1950, who also died in 1953. On 22 December 1953 another minor Naran Parida become the karji. Plaintiff was allowed to discharge the duties of the office of the karji while these minors became karjis. In the year 1957 plaintiff remained absent from duty on leave. On 20 November 1958 the tahasildar s...
Daneyi Gurumurty Vs. Raghu Podhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori68
G.K. Misra, J. 1. The second defendant is the natural mother of the first defendant who was a minor The disputed property belongs to defendant 1 and was inherited from his adoptive father. The adoptive parents of the first defendant are dead. The second defendant as guardian of the first defendant sold to the plaintiff homestead land of 9 x 150 cubits for Rs. 500/- on 6-6-57 by a registered sale deed Ex. 1. The sale was effected for repayment of mortagage dues under Kx. 2 dated 20-7-53 executed by the adoptive father of the first defendant in favour of one Bai Mahapatrani. Plaintiff's case is that the possession of a portion of the land measuring 4 x 38 cubits (disputed portion) was not delivered. He accordingly brought the suit for recovery of the disputed portion, not delivered, or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 200/- out of the sale consideration representing the proportionate value of the disputed portion.Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. Defendant-1 conte...
Damodar Misra and anr. Vs. Banamali Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori61; 33(1967)CLT142
Barman, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal filed by defendant No. 1, Damodar Misra, arises out of a suit for partition filed by his brother, the plaintiff Banamali Misra against defendant No. 1 and the mother defendant No 2 Malati Dibya in respect of the suit properties mentioned, in plaint schedule 'B', 'D' and 'F' The defence of defendant No. t appellant herein is that the plaintiff was in the management of the joint family properties and therefore he was liable to render accounts; it was also contended that defendant No 2 Malati Dibya is not entitled to any share as she was not the widow of their father as alleged. The material issues raised before the trial Court were Issues Nos. 3 and 6 which are these:Issue No. 3: Is the defendant No. 2 the married wife of late Chintamani and the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1? Issue No. 6: Is the plaintiff liable to render accounts of the income of joint family properties and of all sums sent by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff during the last 17 y...
Dhani Bahera Vs. Sushil Chandra Palit
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori59
G.K. Misra, J.1. Respondent is the landlord and the appellant is the tenant under him in respect of a house situate in the city of Cuttack. In House Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1968 the landlord obtained an order of eviction on 6-9-1963 wherein the tenant was directed to vacate the house within four months. As the tenant did not vacate the house, the landlord filed the execution case on 6-3-1964. On receipt of notice under Order 21 Rule 22, C. P. C. the appellant filed an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. alleging that there was an adjustment of the decree on 6-11-1963. The story of settlement, as stated in the objection petition, was that the parties agreed that the tenant would henceforward pay rent regularly and continue in possession of the house as a tenant as before and the landlord would not execute the eviction order dated 5-9-1963 without going into the merits of the objection by taking evidence, the learned Munsif dismissed the petition staling that no document showing se...
Sudhakar Sahu Vs. Achutananda Patel and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori89; 33(1967)CLT86
G.K. Misra, J. 1. The suit lands admittedly belonged to Chandrasekhar Sahu, the deceased husband of Malati (defendant No. 7). After the death of Chandra Sekhar and his son Narayan, defendant 7 had title to and possession in the disputed properties. She sold the disputed lands to the plaintiffs by two registered sale deeds (Exs. 4 and 5) for Rs. 3,000. on 6-9-1956. Plaintiffs' case is that they got delivery of possession under the registered sale deeds; but defendants 1 to 6 trespassed thereupon in May, 1958. The suit was filed on 18-3-1960. Defendants 1 and 8 to 6 claimed no title to the property and pleaded that there was no cause of action against them. Defendant No. 7 admitted plaintiff's claim that she had executed the two sale deeds on payment of consideration. Defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit. His case is that the two sale deeds (Exs. 4 and 5) were collusive and without considera-ti0n. The basis of his claim is that when Narayan was lying ill, defdt. No. 7 gave the dispu...
Hrushikesh Acharya and anr. Vs. Balaram Pati and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori72; 33(1967)CLT58; 1967CriLJ798
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. On 24-12-1965 the Officer-in-charge, Binjharpur Police Station, submitted a report to the Circle Inspector of Police to initiate a proceeding under Section 144, Cri. P. C. for restraining the petitioners (members of the second party) from holding cattle market on plot Nos. 348, 349 and 350 under khata No. 381 in village Barakoti. This remained pending before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who sanctioned forwarding of the report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur, on 28-1-1966. On 25-3-66 Hrushikesh Acharya, petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer stating therein that the petitioners should be heard before orders were passed on the prosecution report.On 26-3-66 the Sub-Divisional Officer issued notice to both the parties to appear on 6-4-66 for hearing. On the same day the petitioners filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for restraining Balaram Pati (Opposite party and first party) from holding ca...
Ramji Prasad Gupta Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ori29; 1967CriLJ235
Misra, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1905), hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Clause 2 of the Orissa Food Grains Dealers Licencing Order 1964 (which came into force on 10-12-64, that is, the very day of occurrence) hereinafter referred to as the Order, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R. I. for six months. The seized paddy and rice were ordered to he confiscated to the State.2. The Inspector of Supplies (P. W. 1) searched the house-cum-shop of the petitioner on 19-12-1964. 30 quintals of paddy and 55 quintals of rice were detected to have been stored. Prosecution case is that though the petitioner was a dealer, he had no licence for storing rice or paddy for sale. The defence of the petitioner was that he had no business in paddy and rice. He and his brother were members of a joint family and the paddy and the rice seized were the yield from their land, The learned Magistrate exam...
Muralidhar Kunar Vs. Bhagaban Kunar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-01-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1238
ORDERB.K. Das, J.1. The opposite party lodged an information before the police alleging that the petitioner and 11 others committed a dacoity in his house on 11-6-64. After investigation the police submitted final report saying that the case is true, but the evidence insufficient. Thereafter the opposite party filed a complaint which was registered as case No, 166/64 and sent for enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P. C. to Sri D. Mohanty, Magistrate 1st class, Anandapur. In course of the said enquiry, the wife of the opposite party was examined. But a petition was filed by the complainant saying that the case had been settled amicably and that he does not want to proceed with the case. The Magistrate thereafter recommended to drop the proceeding as there was no sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case against the persons complained. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 26.10-64, under Section 203, Criminal P. C.Thereafter...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›