Orissa Court January 1972 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.
G. Simmanna and anr. Vs. Maddu Karianna and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori209; 38(1972)CLT261
A. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. 2. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of the suit A Schedule properties or in the alternative for partition of the suit B Schedule properties of which Schedule A constitutes a part in two equal shares and allot one such share to them. In addition, they also prayed for recovery of Rs. 525/- realised from the suit A Schedule lands and kept in deposit during the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. between the parties and for awarding past and future mesne profite. 3. According to the plaintiffs, the B Schedule properties originally belonged to defendant No, 7 and his brother A. Gijjanna. There was a partition between defendant No, 7 and the sons of his brother seven or eight years back in which the A Schedule properties were allotted to the former. While being in possession, defendant No. 7 sold the said properties under a registered sale deed dated 3-4-1962 in favour of the plaintiffs for...
Abdul Sakoor Umar Sahigara Vs. Harachand Dey
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori263
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:--The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- odd on the basis of a security bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 7-8-1963 for Rupees 97,000/- odd on settlement of accounts between the parties. The defence in short, is that the plaintiff had supplied articles worth only Rs. 60,000/- odd, but in collusion with the defendant's agent manipulated the latter's accounts to show supply of articles worth Rs. 97,000/- odd. Before filing of the written statement, the defendant filed a petition for directing the plaintiff to produce his bills which was rejected. The written statement was filed in April, 1967. Thereafter, the defendant filed another petition on 9-1-1968 before the trial Court for directing the plaintiff to produce his accounts relating to past transactions between the parties. On objection by the plaintiff, the said petition was rejected. On 29...
Dinesh Chandra Guha Vs. Satchidananda Mukherji and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ori235
A. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. Originally, plaintiff prayed for specific performance of contract in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint, both of which are situate in Puri town. In the trial court, the claim, so far it related to the A schedule property, was given up,and the plaintiff confirmed his claim to the B schedule. Necessarily the subject-matter of this appeal relates to the B schedule property only.2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief is as follows: The disputed properties originally belonged to Umananda, Rhagendranath and others. In a partition suit of 1923, the A schedule land fell to the share of Khagendranath and his two brothers and the B schedule to Umananda. Thereafter, Umananda mortgaged the B schedule property to Nagendranath Mukherji, father of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. On 11-1-1935. Umananda sold a portion of the said land to one Kamala...
Mst. Sevati Devi and anr. Vs. Ram Pratap Bansal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori25
A. Misra, J.1. The Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their case, in brief, is as follows:--The suit Plot No. 443 appertaining to Khata No. 94 belonged to one Gopal Chan-dra Dwivedi. On his death, his two daughters (plaintiffs) as his sole surviving heirs inherited the same. There are six shop rooms on the said plot as indicated in the sketch plan attached to the plaint. Defendants are brothers. On 1-9-64, defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to take room Nos. 2 and 3, besides the adjacent room on the east, on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per room for a period of eleven months. This agreement was reduced to writing and executed by plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1. Though the agreement recited advance of Rs. 375/- as security, besides payment of Rs. 375/- towards one month's rent; in fact, no amount was paid by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs. On 6-9-64, one Darsan Singh forcibly occupied the easternmost room, which is described as room No. 1 in the plan. On 31-...
Harekrushna Misra and ors. Vs. Ananta Thakur Through Managing Trustee ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori90
A. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 13-G (3) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are as follows:A Notification was issued under Section 3 of the Act on 29-4-1963 abolishing the intermediary interest in 14.80 acres of land in khata No. 1. Part II 448 debottar lakhrai bahal situate in mouza Nuasasan. Kendrapara. The Tribunal constituted under Section 13-C of the Act on receipt of a reference from the Collector under Section 13-D (2) of the Act registered the same on 4-10-1967 as suit No. 944-MG Eef. of 1964 between Ananta Thakur represented by trustee Krushna Chandra Das and the Collector and passed an order fixing the case to 28-10-1967 for removal of some defects. As the defects were not removed, on 28-10-1967, an order was passed dismissing the case for default. On 2-1-1969, a petition was filed by Sri Muralidhar Das as trustee of the deity for restoration of the case which had bee...
Papu Khan Vs. Fatima Babi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Ori235
ORDERA. Misra, J.1. This revision has been filed by defendant No. 1 in a partition suit against an order allowing amendment of the final decree.2. The preliminary decree in a partition suit registered as T. S. No. 29 of 1951 filed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 9 against the present petitioner and others was passed on 29-8-1953 determining the shares of the respective parties. In T. A. No. 160 of 1953, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed on 25-1-1957. According to the preliminary decree, the share of defendant No. 1 in the Kha Schedule land was determined as 62/288. He, however, was to be allotted Rs. -/12/- share in the landlord's interest described in the Ga Schedule which was also included in the Kha Schedule. In the final decree proceeding, a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties according to the shares determined in the preliminary decree. The Commissioner submitted his report erroneously allotting Rs. -/12/- interest in the Kha Schedule land to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›