Orissa Court February 1971 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 Satpathy and anr. Vs. Ghanashyama Satpathy
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori9
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. On 28th March 1968, both the parties filed hazira. Counsel of both the parties were heard as to who would begin first. Since the defendants had set up a plea of adoption, the Court held that the onus to prove adoption lies on them. In this view of the matter he said that the defendants were to begin. Subsequently, the defendants filed a petition for time on the ground that their main witness was ill. The learned Munsif noticed that the defendants had given hazira of five witnesses who were in attendance in Court. In those circumstances the prayer for adjournment was rejected and the defendants were directedto get ready. Subsequently, the defendants did not turn UP. The plaintiff led evidence and an ex parte decree was passed. An application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. The application having been rejected, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Against the appellate order, the Civil Revision has been filed,2. O...
Dula Ganda and ors. Vs. Senapati Ganda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-05-1971
Reported in: 37(1971)CLT318
ORDERG.K. Misra, C.J.1. In Title Suit No. 34 of1965 the plaintiffs asked for declaration of title and rectification of the record-of-rights alleged to have been wrongly made in the name of the defendants. An 'ex parte decree was passed on 6th of May, 1966. The defendants filed an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. on 7th of July,1966 alleging that the plaintiffs trespassed upon the land on 28th of June, 1966 after declaraing that they had obtained an ex parte dercee. The defendants approached their Advocate who on inspection of records on 6th of July, 1966 came to find that the ex parte decree had been passed on 6th of May. 1966. A miscellaneous case was registered in which Dull Ganda (defendant No 1) was examined as a witness and two other witnesses were examined who corroborated his testimony that they came to know of the ex parte decree when the plaintiffs trespassed upon the disputed land on 28th of June, 1966. The learned Munsif rejected the appl...
Kangali SwaIn and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: 37(1971)CLT217
R.N. Misra, J. 1. Naba Dibya, widow of Jagu Pani transferred to the plaintiff the entire interest in the disputed property under a registered sale deed dated 11-2-1956 (Ext. 2). The defendants 1 and 2 were transferees of the entire disputed properties from Bidyadhar, defendant No. 6 under a registered sale deed dated 3-11-1956 (Ext. A). The defendant No. 6 claimed to be the adopted son of Jagu. While the status of the plaintiff's vendor is not in dispute, the adoption of the defendant No. 6 has been seriously challenged. Issue No. 4 in the suit was on the validity of adoption of the defendant No. 6 and Issues 5 and 6 related to the validity of the alienation under Ext. 2 as also its binding effect.2. The trial court found that the defendant No. 6 was the adopted son. Accordingly in the properties left by Jagn, the widow was found entitled to half while the adopted son was found entitled to the other half. The alienation under Ext. 2 was upheld to the extent of a moiety share which corr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›