Orissa Court April 1968 Judgments
Dhanurjay Bhadai and ors. Vs. Dhano Ganda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori179; 34(1968)CLT1093
Patra, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of plaintiff No. 1 and they belong to a Hindu Mitakshara Joint family governed by the Madras School of Hindu Law. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 300 in 1946 from late Dudorso Ganda, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter plaintiff No. 1 used to borrow small amounts occasionally from Dudorso and by 1949 the loan amounted to Rs 700. For this amount of Rs. 700 the first plaintiff executed a mortgage bond (Ex A/11 dated 5-6-49 on chidni (self-liquidation) basis for a period of 7 years in respect of a portion of the ancestral family lands. The implication of this arrangement is that the mortgage amount would be fully satisfied by the mortgagee enjoying the usufruct of the land for 7 years. After the expiry of the period of 7 years, the defendants failed to return the land in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 o...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Jandebi Vs. Upendra Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori187; 34(1968)CLT771
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Janardan died in 1920 leaving behind his widow Brundabati and daughters Narayani and Jandebi (plaintiff). Brundabati died in January, 1958. Narayani died in 1942 leaving behind her sons Upen-dra and Rajendra (defendants 1 and 2). After Janardan's death, Brundabati executed a registered deed of gift (Ex. C) on 17-5-20 in respect of the disputed property In favour of Narayani. The suit was filed on 17-3-58 for recovery of possession of the disputed property after a declaration that the gift was void and was not binding on the plaintiff after the death of Brundabati. All the courts have concurrently held that the gift was void and was not binding on the plaintiff after the death of Brundabati. The trial court held that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applied to the case and both the plaintiff and the defendants would simultaneously inherit the properties of Janardan and the plaintiff was entitled to only eight annas intere...
Tag this Judgment!Antaryami Satpathy and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori160; 34(1968)CLT723; 1968CriLJ1186
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The petitioners were put on trial under Sections 143 and 379, Indian Penal Code Thp trial court convicted them under both the sections and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs 60 each on each count in default to undergo R. I for one month on each count The appellate court acquitted them all of the charge undei Section 379, but maintained their conviction and sentence under Section 143. I P C The Revision isfiled against this order of the lower appellate court.2. The petitioners, according to the prosecution case, are alleged to have trespassed into the threshing floor of P. W. 1 on 9-2-65 at about 6 a.m. and carried away paddy after threshing paddy sheaves on that floor, to the house of petitioner 1. On protest bv P W. 1, it is alleged, some of the petitioners locked him up in one of his rooms and confined him there till the threshing operation was over. But there is no separate charge with respect to this part of the occurrence The paddy so carried away is the usufr...
Tag this Judgment!Krushna Chandra Pail Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori172; 34(1968)CLT585
Ray, J. 1. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 436, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 2/4C of 1965, in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Cuttack and was convicted thereunder and sentenced toundergo Rule I, for four years. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Cr. Appeal No. 133-C of 1965. This petition is directed against the above order of conviction and sentence passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 2. The charge against the petitioner was that he at about 2 A.M. in the night of 20th April 1964, at Jaipur set fire to the Gundi factory house of Jagabandhu Raul which was used as a place for custody of property, with the intention to cause destruction of the house and thereby caused a loss of about Rs. 20,000. 3. The defence of the petitioner was a complete denial of his complicity in the offence. In his statement under Section 342, he stated that he did not stir out of his house that night as...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Das Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori176; 34(1968)CLT594
Barman, C.J.1. The point involved in this writ petition is whether Chapter III (Section 19-28 State Pharmacy Councils), Chapter IV (Sections 29-4D Registration of Pharmacists) and Chapter V (Sections 41-46 Miscellaneous) of the Pharmacy Act. 1948 (Central Act VIII of 1948) as the Act stood before its amendment by the Pharmacy (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Central Act 24 of 1959) could come into force after the expiry of the time-limit of three years without prior notification by the State Government in the Official Gazette as required by Section 1(3) of the Act.2. The petitioner a registered pharmacist of Orissa at present serving as a Dental Technician School Health Services. Sadar Circle Berhampur Ganjam is the President Elect of the Orissa State Pharmacy Council having been so elected on April 12, 1966 by the member of the said Council under Secttion 23 of the Act, the other contestant being opposite party No. 2 Dr. G. S. Mohapatra. Director of Health Services, Orissa the former President ...
Tag this Judgment!Duryodhan Das and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-12-1968
Reported in: 34(1968)CLT545; 1969CriLJ85
ORDERB.K. Patra, J.1. This petition in revision is preferred against an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack upholding the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner under Section 183, Penal Code. One Jema Bewa obtained a decree in the Court of the Munaif, Kendrapara against certain persona. The decree contained a direction inter alia that the defendants should remove a certain portion of the thatch of the adjoining school building which had encroached on the plain, tiff's land and in default thereof the plaintiff was given the liberty to get the encroachment removed through Court. The encroachment having not been removed by the defendants a writ was issued by th8 Court to Nazir (P.W. 1) directing him to remove the encroachment and to give delivery of possession to the plaintiff. This writ was signed by the Munsif on 23.3.63. On that very date, the learned Munsif issued a commission to the civil Court Commissioner (P.W. 2) to demarcate the suit land for deliv...
Tag this Judgment!Paramananda Mohapatra Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori144; 34(1968)CLT627
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 193 and 199. I P. C.. and sentenced to undergo Rule 1 for six months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 on each count, both the sentences to run concurrently In default of payment of fine the petitioner is to undergo Rule 1 for three months on each count 2. The petitioner was tried under the aforesaid sections in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Sadar. Cuttack, in case No 751-C-2/720 T of 1961. cognizance having been taken on those offences on the basis of a complaint petition filed by theHigh Court of Orissa, Being convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the S. D. M., Cut-tack, the petitioner filed an appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 2/C of 1964) which was dismissed by Sri U. N. Misra, Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, by his judgment dated 25-2-66 passed in the said appeal. 3. The facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are shortly these: The petitioner was the outgoing Sar-panch of Bolagarh G...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sk Wajid Ali Vs. Mst. Jiga Bibi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori183; 34(1968)CLT549
ORDERG.K. Misra, J. 1. Title suit No. 41 of 1963 was filed in the Court of the Munsif Kendra-para. Originally the suit was valued at Rs 75. The pravers were for a declaration that the disputed land was the plaintiff's occupancy Chandna holding; for confirmation of possession: for a declaration that the defendant had no title or possession therein and for such other reliefs as the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity. Amongst other defences the valuation of the suit and the insufficiency of Court fee payable were challenged. On 11-9-64 the Additional Munsif held that the market value of the suit land was Rs 4000. Plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint and pay the requisite ad valorem Court fee. Plaintiff amend-ed the plaint and valued the suit at Rupees 4000, but filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C. for permission to sue in forma pauperis. This application was dismissed on 26-7-65 on a finding that the plaintiff was not a pauper and had capacity to pay the ad-...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhu Charan Behera and anr. Vs. Jagabandhu Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ori7; 34(1968)CLT930
ORDER1. The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 57/197 of 1960/1957 in the court of the Additional Munsif, Kendrapara, for partition and re-purchase of the homestead against the opposite parties (defendants). Opp. party 5 had sold his undivided dwelling house and homestead to opp. parties 1 to 4, who are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs and opp. party 5. The trial court decreed the suit in respect of the Bari land and dismissed it in respect of the house. The decretal order dated 11-2-61 runs thus--The defendants 1 to 4 are directed to sell share of the bari land to the plaintiffs for Rs. 92/- within two weeks of the plaintiffs depositing Rs. 92/- into Court for payment to the defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiffs to deposit the money within three weeks hence. On failure of the defendants 1 to 4 to execute the sale deed in the time limited the plaintiffs are entitled to apply to get a sale deed executed by the court in their favour. Plaintiffs deposited Rs. 92/- in court...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore Das Vs. Nilamani Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Ori140; 34(1968)CLT560
ORDERS.K. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff-decree-holder is the petitioner. This revision is directed against an order dated 18-1-68 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 9/65 letting aside the final decree in O. S. No. ft/66.2. The sole question raised is that the executing court had no jurisdiction to treat the application of defendant-1 -judgment-debtor under Section 47, C, P. C. as one under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. and exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same-on its original side and set aside the final decree. The second ground of lack of jurisdiction is founded on the allegation that the petition under Section 47, even if treated as one under Order 9, Rule 13. C. P. C is barred by limitation.3. It is necessary before dealing with the points raised to set out certain salient facts leading upto the passing of the impugned order by the execution court. The plaintiff filed T. S. No. 9/55 for partitioning his eight annas share in the joint family property. In due course, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »