Court : Orissa
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!Court : Orissa
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
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
Reported in : AIR1951Ori186
Panigrahi, J.1. The point raised in this appeal relates to the correct interpretation of Schedule 1 (5), Oriasa Tenancy Act (Bihar and Oriasa Act II [2] of 1913, as amended by Orissa Act VIII [8] of 1938).2. The plaintiff purchased .60 1/2 of an acre of land out of a holding measuring 1.45 acres, in execution of a mortgage decree against defendant 2 who was the occupancy raiyat of the holding no, 189 in Touzi no. 2484 belonging to defendants 3, 4 and 5 who are co-sharer landlords, in village Tiran. The plaintiff purchased four complete plots and an undivided half share in plot no. 580 on 15-5-40 Defendants 3 and 4 filed a rent suit against defendant 2 and put up the holding to sale in execution of the decree obtained in that rent suit. Defendant 1 purchased it at court auction on l5-5-41. The plaintiff thereafter on 17-9-41, filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, praying for a declaration of his right and confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, for delivery of pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori378
Narasimham, J.1. This reference to the special Bench was necessitated in consequence of a difference of opinion between my lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Das who first heard the appeal as a Division Bench.2. The essential facts have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Das and it is unnecessary to repeat them at length. Appellant Radhi Bewa (who was defendant No. 2 in the original suit) is the widow of one Bairagi who died sometime in 1932 or 1934. Respondent Bhagawan (plaintiff no. 1) is the own brother of Batragi and respondents Brundaban and Hrudanand (plaintiffs 2 and 3) are the sons of another brother of Bhagawan and Bairagi named Natha who is dead. There was another brother of Bhagawan named Bharat who died leaving a widow named Keluni (defendant no. 1) and a daughter (defendant no 3.) They were also parties to the litigation in the early stages and it appears that they eventually compromised with the plaintiffs. The whole case p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori75
Narasimham, J. 1. These two connected appeals are by some of the defendants, against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and damages in respect of certain property situate in Sambalpur District which originally belonged to one Lokanath Parichha. The said Lokanath Parichha died sometime in 1895 leaving three daughters through his first wife and a son named Satyanand through his second wife. The name of the second wife of Lokanath was Haripriya alias Srihari. But the parties differ as regards the name of his first wile, the plaintiffs asserting that she was Satyabhama alias Bhama, whereas the principal defendants urged that she was known as Malli. Satynnand succeeded to his father's property but died unmarried sometime in 1902 and then his mother Haripriya succeeded him with the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman's estate. She lived till 1942 and during this long period of nearly 40 years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori182
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63, of the Civil P. C., which has been filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder against whom an adverse order was passed, on a claim filed by the 1st defendant. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court, but on appeal it was decreed against the 1st defendant and hence this appeal. 2. The suit property comprises two lots, specified in the plaint covering an extent of .010 acres which admittedly belonged to one Kinu Sahu. Defendant 1 is his daughter. D. 2 according to the plaintiff is the adopted son of Kinu Sahu and D. 3 is the son of D. 2. Kinu Sahu appears to have died sometime long prior to 1919. D. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 90/- from the plaintiff on a mortgage of certain property, other than the suit property, admittedly belonging to Kinu Sahu. The mortgage is Ex. 1 dated 5-5-1919. The palintiff filed subsequently a suit on that mortgage, obtained a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori42
Narasimham, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by persons who were plying stage carriage vehicles (buses) for hire alongcertain routes in Ganjam district & whose permits have been cancelled with effect from 1-1-1951 in consequence of notification No. 35613 S. T. dated 21-9-1950 read with erratum No. 363669 S. T. dated 27-9-1950 issued by the State Govt. under Section 5, Orissa Motor Vehicles (Regulation of Stage Carriage & Public Carrier's Services) Act, 1947 Orissa Act XXXVI (36) of 1947.2. Sri Lokanath Misra the petitioner in M. J. C. No. 194 of 1950 is the owner of two buses Nos. O. R. G. 399 & 380. He was granted a permit No. 49/1 for three years from 21-4-1949 to 21-4-1952 for plying O. R. G. 380 over Odogan-Aska route in Ganjam district. He was granted another permit No. 39/1 in respect of O. R. G. 380 for a period of one year expiring on 19-11-1948 over Chirrikipada-Chatrapur route in the same district. But sometime in May 1948 that permit was validat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori168; 17(1951)CLT278
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an interlocutory application in Misc. Appeal No. 72/49, which is pending in this Court. The application is to amend the cause-title or the appeal memorandum by impleading the two persons; (1) Rajendra Prasad Bhagat and (2) Kamala Devi as party-respondents in the appeal and for condoning the delay. The appeal was filed on 11-10-1949, and this application was made on 25-9-1950. In order Ho appreciate the circumstances under which the application has been made, it is necessary to set out a few facts. M.A. 72/49 is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur on M.J.C. No. 92/48 before him. That was an application under Section 47 Civil P. C., in the course of proceedings for execution of a mortgage-decree obtained against the father of the present appellant by the decree-holders therein. By that petition, a question was raised by the judgment-debtor that the decree obtained against his father was not execuable against him, without determinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori362
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal was heard by Das, J. & Narasimham J. In view of the four unreported decisions of this Court in Second Appeal No. 10 of 1945, Second Appeal No. 192 of 1946, Second Appeal No. 86 of 1944 & Second Appeal No. 41 of 1946 giving rise to conflicting opinions on some vital aspects of the question as to certain distinctive features of a transaction of 'mortgage by conditional sale' as distinguished from 'a sale out & out', they have referred it to a Full Bench. The divergence of view, that according to them was of a serious character, was regarding the burden of proof, & besides, it also related to the effect of'(1) the insertion of a penalty clause in such document for return of the consideration money plus interest if the vendee is dispossessed from the lands through defect of title of the vendor or otherwise; & (2) the insertion of an express provision postponing mutation of the name of the vendee in the landlord's sherasta till expiry of the stipulated period.'2. The...
Tag this Judgment!