Orissa Court December 1980 Judgments
Madhab Chandra Naik and ors. Vs. Ashai Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: 51(1981)CLT144; 1981CriLJ1181
R.N. Misra, Ag. C.J.1. This revision application under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed at the instance of the second party challenging the final order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bamanehaty, Rairanspur. dated 30th of April, 1977, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code holding that the first party was in possession of the disputed property excepting plot No. 60. Aggrieved by this decision of the learned Magistrate petitioners had filed Criminal Revision No. 9-M of 1977 before the learned Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj and by order dated 10-5-1979, the revision was dismissed. Members of the second party have carried the second revision to this Coun against the original order. When this revision application came up for hearing before one of us, it was contended bv the opposite party that this revision was not maintainable in view of the provisions in Section 397(3) of the Code. In answer to the obieotion, it was contended by petitioners' counsel that as the procee...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Saha and ors. Vs. Anantanarayan Das Choudhury and Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori58; 51(1981)CLT125
N.K. Das, J.1. Plaintiff and defendants are owners of two adjoining pucca buildings facing a main road in the town of Puri. Plaintiff brought the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction on the top of their ground-floor adjoining the window of the plaintiff on his first-floor within fortyfive-degree angle from the sill of the window.Plaintiffs case is that he purchased a double-storeyed building in 1943 by a registered sale deed and is in possession of the same since the time of purchase. Construction of the building was completed in the year 1938. In the first-floor he has one window on the northern wall of the western room, marked 'X' in the sketch-map appended to the plaint. The defendants threatened to make construction over their ground-floor near the aforesaid window in a manner so as to block the flow of light and air to the room of the plaintiff through the said window. They further threatened to obstruct the plaintiff in his convenient and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Bauribandhu Mohanty Vs. Champabati Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori61; 51(1981)CLT107
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The second appeal is by the defendant against a decree of affirmance.2. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession.3. The original plaintiff Fakir Prusty having died during the pendency of the suit, the present respondents have been substituted in his place as his legal representatives. 4. The case pleaded in the plaint was that late Fakir Prusty purchased the suit land from one Krushna Chandra Naik and was in possession of the same. Due to some ill feeling with his stepbrother Jogendra Prusty, he executed a nomial sale deed on 30-11-1962 (Ext. 1) in respect of the suit land in favour of Udayanath Mohanty without payment of consideration and he continued to possess the suit land as before notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed. After the death of Udayanath Mohanty, his widow Keli Dei executed a Nedabi deed (Ext. 2) in favour of Fakir Prusty a...
Tag this Judgment!Hadupani Sabato Vs. Ganta Ratnam
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori42; 51(1981)CLT87
N.K. Das, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed ah agreement (Ext. I) on 9-12-1963 agreeing to sell Ac. 0.99 cents of land situated in village Goelundi in Berhampur Town for a sum of Rs. 19.800/- at the rate of Rs. 200/- per cent of land and took an advance of Rs. 500/-. In the agreement, it was stipulated that the defendant would get the land measured in presence of the plaintiff within 2 months and 15 days from the date of the agreement and execute and register a sale deed and deliver possession of the property to- the plaintiff within that period of 2 months and 15 days. In case of failure to get the land measured in presence of the plaintiff and to execute the sale deed the defendant would refund the advance amount of Rs. 500/- along with Rupees 6,000/- as damages and also execute and register the sale deed. If within the stipulated period the plaintiff fails to carry out his par...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›