Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-18-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Ori125
Narasimham, J.1. These six revision petitions are against the order of the District Munsif of Aaka rejecting six execution petitions Nos.269, 271, 272, 273, 276 and 277 of 1944 on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The revision petitions were first heard by my Lord the Chief Justice sitting singly and he was pleased to refer to a larger Bench in view of the doubt entertained by him regarding the correctness of two Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Banwari Narain v. Ramhari Narain, A. I. R (29) 1942 pat. 335: (197 I. C. 217) and Mohammad Sadique Mian v. Mdkabir Sao, A. I. E. (29) 1942 Pat. 410 : (21 Pat. 866).2. The material facts which are not in dispute are as follows: Execution petn. no. 269 of 44 arose out of a Small Oause Court suit which was disposed of on 1st August 1944 and the remaining five execution petitions arose out of Small Cause Court suits which were disposed of on 8th August 1941. In all those suits, the decrees were actually dra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-27-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori138
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa Against an order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, in a case arising under Schedule 88 Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused Oriya Sama Majhi disobeyed an order under Schedule 44 criminal P. C. promulgated on 5-2-49, in the Bamangati Subdivision of Mayurbhanj District, prohibiting the residents there in from carrying bows and arrows or any deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused was moving about on 31-3-49 in his village, Maranda, with a bow, arrows, and a sword shouting that he would kill his enemies with, these weapons. The order under Schedule 44 was duly promulgated on 5-2-49, and it is proved that the accused had knowledge of the ban imposed under this order. The trying magistrate recorded a finding that the accused intentionally disobeyed the order and that the disobedience caused danger to human life and safety.He accordingly convicted the accused of an offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-11-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori86; 16(1950)CLT209
Narasimham, J.1. These four petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against certain orders of the District Magistrate of Kalahandi directing the internment of the petitioners within the limits of Nawapara sub-division of that district in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948.2. Petitioner Ismail is the son of the petitioner Khan Sahib Adam Hazi Saleh Mohammed and the family have extensive business with headquarters in Nawapara sub-division. They have also extensive agricultural lands in that sub-division. Affidavits were filed on their behalf to the effect that they were nationals of the Indian Union and in the counter affidavit filed by the Government this citizenship was not challenged and we would therefore take it as well, established that the two petitioners are citizens of the Indian Union. On 17-7-49 the then District Magistrate of Sambalpur, (within whose jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-29-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori84
Ray, C.J.1. The petitioners seek review of the orders of the Court below convicting them under Sections 145 and 188, Penal Code, for having violated an order under Schedule 44, Criminal P. C., promulgated by the Magistrate and having failed to disperse the unlawful assembly after having been commanded to do so.2. The petitioners' contention is that the prosecution under Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in law as no complaint was filed by the public authority concerned according to the provisions of Schedule 95, Criminal P. C. Secondly, that the trial, being bad in law as to Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in its entirety.3. These contentions are sought to be met by the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, in two ways: (i) that the offence under. Schedule 88, Penal Code, has bean declared cognisable under Schedule 0, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and hence compliance with Section 195, Criminal P. C. is not necessary; and (ii) that even if the trial be bad with regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-23-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori141
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in Bira Naik v. Sidha Kamal Nayan S A. No. 172 of 1945 : (I. L. B. (1949) l Out. 121).2. On the filing of the application, we sent for a finding of the valuation of the property in suit. The trial Court returned a finding opining that the landed property in dispute is valued at a figure more than Rs. 5,000 Besides, the plaintiff-respondent had been given a decree for recovery of masne profits to the extent of Rs. 5,000 and odd. The decree, therefore, involves rather directly some claim or question with respect to the property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards within the meaning of para 2 of S. HO, Civil P. C. As this is a decree which reverses the judgments of the Courts below, the appellant has an unrestricted right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The question whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of para 3 of Section 110 of the Code does not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-21-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori1; 17(1951)CLT10
Narasimham, J.1. This petition is against the judgment of Sri Priyanath Sarkar, Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur, convicting the petitioner under Schedule 07, Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for contravention of Schedule 66 of that Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under Schedule 12 of that Act directing the petitioner to deposit the full licence fee of Rs. 285 plus cost to the District Board of Ganjam.2. The petitioner is the owner of two motor buses Nos. O. B. C. 107 and O. B. C. 115 which were plying for hire between Cuttack and Berhampur in January-March 1914. He had obtained a permit from the Regional Transport Authority for plying the vehicles on the road from Cuttack to Berhampur during the said period but he did not obtain any licence from the Ganjam District Board as required by Schedule 66 (l) (a), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Madra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori153
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendant 1 is the applt in this 2nd appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment filed by the pltf against defts 1 and; 2 in respect of a homestead land, .015 acre in. extent and appertaining to plot 236 in Cuttack town. Plot 236 out of which the suit-plot has been carved out is a homestead plot in respect of which the pltfs have been recorded in the settlement records as Chandnadars. Deft 2 obtained a lease of the suit-plot from the pltfs and has been in possession thereof for a considerable period of time, for over 20 years according to the pltf, but according to deft for over 40 years. Deft 2 had admittedly erected a house on it & has been recorded in the current settlement record-of-rights as a Darhandnadar. On 30-6-45, deft 2 sold the land with the superstructure thereon to deft 1. Pltf accordingly filed the suit for ejectment against both defts 1 & 2 on 5-9-45. It is the pltf's case that deft 2 was a mere tenant-at-will under him & that he had no rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Ori157
Narasimham, J. 1. These applications are under Section 491, Criminal P, C., against the orders of detention passed by the Provincial Government in exercise of their powers under Section 2 (1) (a) read with Section 4, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act) as amended by the amending Act (Orissa Act VI [6] of 1949). The applications were filed before the commencement of the Constitution and the legality of the detentions was therefore challenged on various other grounds which have now become academic in view of the coming into force of the Constitution on 25th January 1950. The legality of the detention of the applicants was challenged by Mr. M. Mahanty and Mr. Mahapatra on behalf of the applicants on the ground that the provisions of the Oriasa Act dealing with preventive detention were void under Article 13(1) on account of their inconsistency with Article 22(4), 22 (5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution. The learned advocates farther rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori105; 16(1950)CLT249
Das, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a decree for ejectment obtained by the respondent against the appellant, in respect of a house situated in the town of Cuttack. The respondent is admittedly the owner of the house. The appellant was occupying the house on a monthly tenancy under her. During the time when the House Rent Control Order of 1942 was in force, she obtained from the House Controller, an order dated 15-8 44 exempting her from the operation of B. 4 thereof. On 13-9-44, she gave the tenant a notice, requiring him to vacate the premises by 1-1044 and also calling upon him to pay up the arrear.3 of rent by then due. She filed a suit for ejectment O. S. No. 71/45 on 26-2-1945 and obtained a decree on 17-12-1945. She proceeded to execute the decree by execution case no. 230/46 filed on 30.4.1946 which was adjourned from time to time by arrangement between the parties and was ultimately dismissed for default on 7-5-1917. On 10-5-1917, the decree-holder respondent filed a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori262
Panigrahi, J.1. It is not necessary to reserve judgment & keep back my decision from the parties in this case. The facts giving rise to the appeal are simple but; the law argued at the Bar is not as simple.2. The pltf resp. filed a suit in ejectment out of which this appeal arises-in respect of an extent of 136 of. an acre in C. S. Plot no. 2007 in Cuttack Town, against the defts. alleging that they were darpattadars under him in respect of this property. The pltf. served a notice to quit on 19-4-46 & filed the suit a month later. His case was that the deft, is a tanant-at-will & is liable to be evicted at any time. The deft, pleaded that he had a house on the suit holding for at least 70 years & had acquired permanent occupancy right in the land, that the notice to quit was neither proper nor duly served upon him, & that he is protected from eviction by virtue of the recent amendment to Schedule 36, Orissa Tenancy Act, by AOL X [10) of 1946. Exhibit a, the Current Settlement Khatian s...
Tag this Judgment!