Orissa Court September 1983 Judgments
Purandar Sa and ors. Vs. Kishore Chandra Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori54
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants 1 to 7 are the petitioners challenging the order dated 1-8-1981 of the Munsif, Sambalpur, in Title Suit No. 8629 of 1976/1980 whereby the learned Munsif has held that the suit did not abate as a whole though it abated as against defendant 14.2. A short genealogy indicating the relationship of the defendants inter se is given hereunder for proper appreciation of the point in the suit : Uddhab Panda(dead) | _____________________________________________________________ | | | | Maina Nilamani Kinja Hrushikesh Married to (dead) (d-10) (d-14) Pandaba (d-18) | | | | | | | | | _______________ __________________ ____________ | | | | | | | Chandantula Nage Bhojraj shibsankar sudarsanJanakramSanatam Married to (dead) (d-11) (d-15) (d-13) (d-15) (d-16)Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest on the assertion that after the death of Uddhab, Kunja (defendant 10) separated himself from his other brothers and took his share in mauza ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaka Barikani Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mahaprabhu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori39
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 (a/1) is the appellant against a reversing judgment.2. Plaintiff, the deity Sri Chandra Se-khar Mahaprabhu represented by the trustee Sri Chaitanya Das, filed the suit, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits with respect to the land covered by T. D. No. 129 on the averment that the deity is the owner of the land and Bairagi Das was the last previous trustee who was cultivating the lands under khas cultivation. After Bairagi, Chaitanya Das continued as the trustee. During survey operation for issue of Patta and fixation of rent, the defendants tried to put forth a fictitious claim and produced some sale deed alleged to have been executed by one Nilapu Kantaru. Nilapu Apudu and others. In the detailed enquiry conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, deity's title was declared and the Assistant Settlement Officer further held the defendants to be trespassers. On account of such trespass, the plaintiff had filed the suit.By way of amendmen...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Ray Vs. Haramani Dei (Deceased by Lr.) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori67; 56(1983)CLT503
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is a revision against an order refusing leave to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit.2. The petitioner brought Original Suit No. 252 of 1976 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession; in the alternative for recovery of possession if he was found not to be in possession and for damages for unlawful removal of trees etc. He also alleged that the defendants had constructed a room over plot No. 1704, a part of the disputed, property.3. Defendant No. 2 was set ex parte on 18-3-1977. On 30-8-1978 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 22, Rule 4 (4) of the Civil P. C. (for short, 'the Code') for exempting him from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of defendant No. 2 about whose death he learnt 8 days before. An objection was filed by defendant No 3 to the effect that the Said defendant had died on 15-3-1978 arid had left behind legal representatives on whom his estate had devolved and ...
Tag this Judgment!Anama SwaIn and ors. Vs. Janakinath Mitra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR352
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners, five in number, have been convicted under sections 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Each has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count.2. The prosecution case is that on 3. 1. 78 around 'noon while the complainant opposite party was standing in front of the house of one Kampala Rout, the petitioners came in a body armed and dashed against him and abused him in filthy language. The opposite party alleged that had he not restrained himself and the villagers intervened; there would have been breach of the public peace. Despite denial by the petitioners and their plea of alibi,, the courts below have convicted and sentenced them for the offences stated above.3. The courts below have believed the witnesses as regards the acts of the petitioners constituting an offence under section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been urged that P. W. 3 was a chance witness and his evidence, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pranabandhu Misra Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR67
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. on the allegation that he committed theft of electric energy. He prays for quashing the criminal proceeding in G. R. Case No. 87 of 1979 on the ground that it has been instituted in violation of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. That Section reads :'50. No. prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any rule, licence or order there under, except at the instance of Government or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same'.2. There can be no doubt that the prosecution was instituted in this case for an offence against the Indian Electricity Act because, under Section 39 of the Act, dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electric enery is deemed to be theft, within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code.3. The crucial question for consideration is whether the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one of the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›