Orissa Court September 1989 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.
Kanhu Khuntia Vs. Padmalava Khuntia and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori182
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his 'Seva-pali' right for the period 27th day of 'Simha' to 19th. day of 'Dhanu' at 'Bata-Ganesh' inside the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with such right. Plaintiff is the son of one Baman Khuntia. Defendants 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of Ramanath Khuntia and defendant No. 7 is the son of Palabhadra Khuntia. The entire year is divided into three periods, the first period being 1st day of 'Mesha'(Baisakh) to 26th. day of 'Simha' (Bhadra); the second period between 27th. day of 'Simha' (Bhadra) to 19th. day of 'Dhanu' (Pousha) and the third period being from 20th day of 'Dhanu' (Pousha) to 30th day of 'Mina'(Chaitra). So far as the first period is concerned, it is defendant No. 7 who performs the 'Pali' and it is in accordance with the registered partition deed dated 21-6-1934 (Ext. F). Th...
Paramananda Panda Vs. Krushna Chandra Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori188; 69(1990)CLT170
C.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner and being aggrieved by the order dt. 19-10-1985 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur, refusing the plaintiff's prayer to stay the further proceedings of Execution Case No. 17 of 1984 has filed the revision.2. The plaintiff filed the suit (T.S. 140 of 1985) with the prayer that Schedule-B of the plaint schedule property be partitioned and for a declaration that the decree in Title Suit No. 16 of 1979 does not bind the plaintiff, on the allegation that defendant No. 11, Madan Mohan Panda had filed the earlier Title Suit No. 16 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur, wherein the plaintiff's father was a party and obtained a decree therein by intentionally excluding the plaintiff from the suit and by exercising undue influence on his father and in the process the plaintiff was denied of his due share in the ancestral property. For course of the said suit, the plaintiff also filed in application for stay of execution case. No....
Handa Das and ors. Vs. Muralidhar Pati and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori226
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Balasore. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of contract alleged to have been executed by Jujesthi, Das, the father of defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and husband of defendant No. 4.2. According to the plaintiffs' case, said Jugesthi agreedto sell the land, which he had got in a partition of the year 1948, as he required money for his maintenance. The plaintiff offered the consideration money of Rs. 2,500/- but as the entire consideration money was not there, he paid Rs. 2,200/- on 5-6-1973 on which date the agreement was executed and it was agreed that on payment of the balance consideration money of Rs. 300/-Jugesthi would execute the register sale deed. But unfortunately, before execution of such sale deed, Jugesthi died on 16-3-1974. Plaintiff thereafter approached the legal heirs of Jugesthi, the defendants but they did not pay any attention. Therefore, ...
Ela Dasu Vs. Ela Lachamma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: 69(1990)CLT102; I(1990)DMC281
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant were married on 2-3-1969 and the marriage was duly consumated and they were living as husband and wife, but they did not have any issue. They continued as such till 1973 when the defendant began to illtreat the plaintiff mostly on account of the fact that no child was born. The plaintiff was driven out of the husband's house in September, 1973. She then sent a registered notice on 8-3-1974 but the defendant denied the allegations made in the notice. In reply to the registered notice, the defendant alleged that there has been no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant. On these allegations, the suit was filed for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.3. The defendant in his written statement denied all the allegations made in the plaint. According to the defence case, the defendant had marri...
Shyama Sundar Mohapatra Vs. Janaki Ballav Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori23; 69(1990)CLT18
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit in respect of defendant No. 4 should be tried as a preliminary issue. The question having been answered in the negative by the learned trial Judge, defendant No. 4 in the suit filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Orissa High Court challenging the said order of the learned trial Judge.2. Original Suit No. 1 of 1987 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 claiming damages and special damages for publishing certain articles allegedly containing scandalous and libellous matters imputing the plaintiff's moral character. The suit was initially filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar which was transferred subsequently to this Court. It is now pending before Justice Shri K. P. Mohapatra for trial. In the suit one of the ...
Gourishankar Kanungo and ors. Vs. Khetramohan Ray and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori149; 69(1990)CLT188
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack in Certificate Revision Case No. 35 of 1983 (Annexure 3) rejecting the application of the petitioners to set aside the sale of the mortgaged property on reversing the orders passed by the Certificate Officer as well as by the appellate authority. The disputed property is A. 156 decimals of land in village Odangi. Petitioners 1 to 9 are interested in A.O.03 decimals of land out of the disputed property. Petitioners 10 to 12 are concerned with' the rest of the disputed property.2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding may be stated thus:One Madan Mohan Mohapatra had four sons, namely, Umakanta, Amaryami, Murali and Ramakanta. Antaryami and Murali died issueless. Umakanta has four sons, namely Dwarikanath, Sitakanta, Rabinarayan and Laxmidhar (petitioner No. 12)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›