Orissa Court June 1977 Judgments
Prafulla Chandra Deo Vs. Kasinath Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori198
S. Acharya, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed in M. J. C. No. 32 of 1975. M. J. C. No. 32/75 was registered on the petition of the judgment debtor, the appellant in this appeal, opposing the execution of the compromise decree passed in the connected money suit on the ground that Ac. 1.43 decimals of land, which was not the subject-matter of this suit, is included in the compromise decree, and as the said decree has not been registered the court has no jurisdiction to execute said decree. The court below held that the averment made in the compromise petition referring to Ac. 1.43 decimals of land was made only for the purpose of facilitating realisation of the decretal dues, and the said averment did not amount to any agreement requiring registration of the same under the Registration Act, and so the decree holder could execute the said decree for the realisation of his dues from the judgment debtor.2. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, urges the above-menti...
Tag this Judgment!Sanatan Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Hakim Mohammad Kazim Mohmmad and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ori194; 44(1977)CLT606
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The principal opposite parties 1 to 7 instituted O. S. No. 3 of 1967-1 in the Court of Munsif. Bhadrak against the petitioners and pro forma opposite parties 8 to 14 for the relief of, inter alia, permanent injunction restraining the defendants, in their representative capacity, from interfering with their customary right of performing religious ceremonies on the suit land, on the ground that they have not only acquired this customary right of using the suit land for religious purposes but have also acquired title to the same by purchase from Shri Udayanath Das by two registered sale deeds contemporaneously executed on 2-6-1958 (Exts. 31 and 32). Defendants while denying plaintiffs' alleged customary right, also denied their title to the suit land alleging that the aforesaid sale deeds under which the plaintiffs claim title are collusive and void documents and are not supported by any consideration (paragraph 10 of the written statement). They, however, claimed com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›