Orissa Court July 1971 Judgments
Khirodnath Gountia Vs. Arjun Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori95; 37(1971)CLT972
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is an application of the defendant under Section 155. Civil P. C. When it came up for hearing before his Lordship the Chief Justice, he directed that this revision application be heard by a Division Bench. That is how the matter is before us.2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed Money Suit No. 8/31 of 1968 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge. Bargarh, asking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1000/-. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that on 5-2-1965 the defendant incurred a loan of Rs. 1000/-undertaking to pay by the following Chaitra Purnima the principal along with Interest and in evidence of the transaction had executed a receipt In spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay. Therefore, the suit was instituted. The suit was transferred to the Munsif for trial.3. During trial dispute was raised by the defendant when the plaintiff wanted the document dated 8-2-1965 to be received in evidence. The defendant took the stand that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector, Cuttack Vs. Padma Charan Pani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori203
A. Misra, J.1. The State is the appellant against an award dated 8-12-1966 passed by the Special Officer at Cuttack performing the functions of a court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. A 3.96-6 1/4 kadis of land was acquired in village Bhitargarh. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,452.39. though respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre towards the value of the acquired land, besides Rs. 15,000/-towards the loss of income from fishing and compensation for the house alleged to have existed on the acquired land. As the respondents raised objection to the adequacy of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made.3. The court below enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,933.42 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1.200/- per acre, the value of the house at Rs. 400/- and addi...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Chandra Pradhan Vs. Nilakantha Tripathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori99
S. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiff being unsuccessful in both the courts below has preferred this second appeal against the confirming decision of the Subordinate Judge, Aska dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession after demolishing the structure standing on the suit land.2. The undisputed facts are that the defendant No. 1, Nilakantha Tripathy (Respondent No. 1 herein) is the father of the defendants 2. 3. 4 (respondents Nos. 2. 3 and 4 herein). The defendant No. 5, Kantamma Patrani (Respondent No. 5 herein) purchased the suit property from Trilochan Tripathy (defendant No. 21 and Kailash Tripathy (defendant No. 3) by a registered sale deed, Ext. A dated 10-3-1960. The plaintiff purchased the same suit property under Ext. 1 dated 6-1-1964 from defendant No. 1.The plaintiff, after the aforesaid purchase on 6-1-1964, filed this suit in April 1969 on the allegation that defendant No. 1 after the aforesaid sale under Ext. 1, delivered possession of the suit lands to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekhar Patnaik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1971
Reported in: 37(1971)CLT833; 1972CriLJ403
S. Acharya, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 475 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- on each count; in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo R, I. for one month more on each count. The substances of imprisonment, have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Mr. Kanungo, the learned Counsel for the appellant criticised the judgment of the appellate court as not in accordance with law, inter alia, on the grounds that there is absolutely no discussion regarding the particular offences for which the appellant has been convicted, no independent assessment and/or sifting of the evidence on record has been made in order to examine if the findings in the impugned judgment are correct or not; and that it has proceeded mostly on irrelevant considerations.3. Mr. Kanungo cited a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 1969 Cri AR 297, wherein their Lordships, on the finding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Ghose Vs. Antarjyami Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ori182; 37(1971)CLT839
S. Acharya, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this Second Appeal, preferred against the decision of the Subordinate Judge. Berhampur in Title Appeal No. 203 of 1965-GDC reversing the decision of the Munsil Berhampur in Title Suit No. 221 of 1963, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands and for mesne profits and for an order to withdraw a sum of Rs. 400/- kept in deposit towards the price of the crop of the suit lands when the suit lands were involved in a proceeding under Section 145. Cr. P. C.2. The plaintiff's suit is mostly on the following averments:The plaintiff No. 1 is the adopted son of Agadhu and the plaintiff No. 2 is the widow of the said Asadhu. The suit lands are Durmila Inam lands under Survey No. 202. The father of the plaintiff No. 1 purchased the suit lands from defendants 1 to 3 the original owners by an unregistered sale deed (Ex. 1) dated 20-1-45. The said document (Ex. 1) was not register...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›