Orissa Court June 1986 Judgments
Brundaban Patra Vs. State of 0rissa Through the Secretary, Agriculture ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR160
C.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioner who was elected as the President of the Committee of Management of the United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank, a Society under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to quash the notification contained in Annexure-2 and to set aside the election of opposite parties 5 to 14 who have been elected as Directors to the Committee of Management of the Society. It has further been prayed that the petitioner should be restored to his position as President of the Society for the rest of the term.After stating the facts and contentions of counsels, Their Lordships observed :4. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. A. B. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does not press the point that was taken in the writ petition. On the other hand, learned counsel has urged a contention that the fixing of the date of the general meeting of the Society for holding the election on 1-8-1984 under An...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Behera Vs. Batakrishna Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori7; 62(1986)CLT613
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 292/77 pending in the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack is the petitioner in this revision. He filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of the properties described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. A prayer for permanent injunction and removal of encroachment from a portion of the suit properties was also made in the said suit. At one stage of the suit the plaintiff-petitioner relied on two rent receipts which were challenged by the defendant-opp. party. On the ground that the same were forged. The opp. party applied for sending the said documents to a handwriting expert for a comparison with his admitted signatures and for opinion in the matter. Both parties agreed that the documents should be sent by the Court to an expert outside the State without disclosing the name of the expert to the parties obviously to avoid any scope for...
Tag this Judgment!Baruni Behera (Dead by Lrs.) and ors. Vs. Padan Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori187
L. Rath, J. 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit and died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court for which the present appellants were substituted. The appeal has been filed against the reversing judgment in the suit filed for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of Order 27 acres of land in Khata No. 114 of Mouza-Uasahi. The respondents 1 and 2 were the defendants 1 and 2 before the trial court and were the appellants 1 and 2 before the lower appellate court. Respondent No. 3 was the defendant No. 3 who was set ex parte and was the pro forma respondent No. 2 in the lower appellante court. 2. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land belonged to one Mani Das who died leaving behind his son Gobinda. Gobindadied in 1950 leaving behind his widow Saria and son Ganesh. While Ganesh was alive his mother fostered Kunti, defendant No. 3 for the purpose of giving her ...
Tag this Judgment!Managobinda and ors. Vs. Brajabandhu Misra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori281; 1986(II)OLR299
L. Rath, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit was brought for declaration of title confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the possession of the appellants-plaintiffs.2. Briefly stated the appellants' case is that the disputed land is part of plot Nos. 5656 and 5657 and measures 50 cubits of length from North to South and 1 1/2 cubits width from East to West and on it stands the western wall of the appellants' row of houses (consisting of courtyard, back row of houses and front row of houses) and a fence in the back yard towards the north of the house. It is the appellants' case that the suit land and the wall constitute the western boundary of the said two plots which are ancestral homestead of the appellants and they have been all along possessing and maintaining the same as also the fence. The thatches of the front row and the back row of the houses of the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagyarathi Das and anr. Vs. Agadhu Charan Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT298; 1986(II)OLR184
L. Rath, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment arising out of a suit for partition instituted against the respondent-defendant. Appellant No. 2 who was the plaintiff No 2 in the suit is the mother of appellant No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1). The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiff No. 2 is the married wife of the defendant and out of their wedlock the appellant No. 1 was born. The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the parties. The defendant, for two years preceding the suit, started neglecting the plaintiffs and squandering the family properties for inconsequential amounts and on protest of the plaintiffs, the defendant threatened to drive them out. Hence the plaintiffs brought the suit for partition.2. The defendant-respondent in his written statement completely denied any relationship with the plaintiffs and contended that the appellant No. 2 is not his wife and that on the other hand one Sushila is his wife. It was his case that, appellant No...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaiga Pradhan Vs. Iswar Adhikari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR258
L. Rath, J.1. The appellants who were respectively defendants 1 and 2 in the suit have preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional District Judge, Canjam-Boudh decreeing the plaintiff's suit so far as item No. 2 of the suit scheduled properties are concerned. The suit was instituted by Iswar Adhikari who having died has been substituted by respondent Nos. 1/a to 1/i. Appellant No. 2 has been deleted from being a party by order No. 16 dated 17-4-1985 passed in Misc. Case No. 44/85. The respondent No. 1 who was the plaintiff in the trial Court instituted the suit for two Items of properties for relief that the judgment of the Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur, Under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in M C No. 65/78 in respect of item No. 1 of the suit property is not binding upon him and for recovery of possession so far as both item Nos. 1 & 2 of the suit properties are concerned. The suit was dismissed with regard to item No. 1 of the suit property. So far as item No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Sashibhusan Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT407; 1986(II)OLR267
L. Rath, J.1. The State of Orissa which was the defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff brought the suit for relief of declaration that defendant is not entitled to recover Rs. 3000/- from the plaintiff as claimed in the Certificate Case No. 1036/66-67 in the Court of the Certificate Officer, Banapur, and for a decree of Rs. 1000/- against the defendant and also further prayed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from taking any coercive process to recover the amount of Rs 3000/- from him under the aforesaid certificate case.2. The claim of the plaintiff briefly stated is that he was a registered railway contractor in 1964 and under the agreement between him and the railways he was to supply black metal to the railway authorities, For the purpose of execution of such contract, he wanted to work out Badapokharia black metal quarry which was put to auction in March, 1964 and the bid was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganeswar Mishra Vs. Sri Adwait Charan Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT708; 1986(II)OLR164
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The trial Court having accepted the plea raised by opposite party No. 1 that the suit was barred by limitation Under Section 21, Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this application Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the said order.The petitioner, Ganeswar Mishra, filed Money Suit No. 211 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, against opposite party No 1, Adwait Charan Mohanty, for recovery of Rs. 2520/- as arrear house rent and arrear charges of water pipe, With interest, at the rate of 6 percent per annum on the claim. It was averred in the plaint that though arrear house rent amounting to Rs. 3744/-, including the water pipe charges for the period commencing from January, 1973 to April, 1977 was due from the defendant as the arrear rent from 1-1-1973 to May, 1974 was barred by limitation the plaintiff was antitled to recover Rs. 2520/- only. The rent was due in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Danei Sahoo Vs. Jagannath Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR272
L. Rath, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant against the reversing judgment. The suit was originally brought against Punia Sahu as defendant No. 1 and Lord Jagannath through the marfatdar Anantapuja Badapanda Samanto as defendant No. 2 for declaration of the right of occupancy over the disputed land and for confirmation of possession or recovery of possession if the plaintiff is found to be dispossessed from the disputed land during the pendency of the suit.After stating the facts and contention of counsel His Lordship observed :' '8. Admittedly, the appeal before the lower appellate Court was dismissed for non-prosecution as against defendant-respondent No. 2 (before the lower appellate Court) and further, there was also no substitution so fir he was concerned. However, dismissal/abatement of the appeal as against defendant No. 2 has been rightly held by the lower appellate Court not to effect the merits of the appeal before him. Dispute of the plaintiff-appellant was essentially with...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Tanty Vs. Subdivisionsl Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR178
B.K. Behera, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the finding recorded by the Subdivisional Officer, Sundargarh, in a proceeding Under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act rejecting the case of the petitioner with regard to possession of the disputed land and accepting that of the original opposite party No, 2 that he had been in possession of the lands in dispute after purchasing a part thereof on September 16, 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 150/- and the remaining part on April 14, 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 175/-for which two unregistered deeds of sale had been executed and had perfected his title over the lands by prescription. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. M. R. Panda has challenged the finding as illegal and unfounded while the learned counsel for the opp. parties have submitted that there is no case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.2. It has been a well-settled principle that in exercise of the discretionary ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »