Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1985Ori171
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, in Title Suit No. 13 of 1966. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the Schedule-A property and for recovery of possession from defendant No. 1.2. According to the plaint case, Holding No. 104 in Ward No. 6 of Sambalpur Town was purchased under two sale deeds registered on 5-3-1929 in equal shares, one by Panaram (father of the plaintiff) and Chouthmal (brother of the plaintiff) and the other by Bhairuram and his son Baluram and they have been in possession of the same ever since the date of Their purchase. In 1929, the house standing onthe plot was reconstructed by submission of a joint plan. Baluram died in 1962 without any heir. One Mani De in execution of a decree in Execution Case No. 83 of 1962 attached the entire property for payment of his decretal dues against defendant No. 2 who is son of Raghunath, brother of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 88(1999)CLT594; II(1999)DMC756; 1999(II)OLR110
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela passing a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the Respondent.2. Sri K.C. Lenka, learned counsel for the appellants assails the order for dissolution of the marriage inter alia on the ground of maintainability of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and on the ground that there was no sufficient material before the learned Judge, Family Court to hold that the appellant-wife was guilty of cruelty towards the husband and that the marriage has become irretrievable. It is his submission that the admitted case of the parties that they being in love, their marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act at the first instance whereunder it was solemnised at Calcutta in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites, a petition under the Special Marriage Act could only be filed for dissolution of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2006Ori186; 2006(II)OLR94
Pradip Mohanty, J.1. The above two appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arise out of the judgment and order dated 29.01.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 5 of 1992. MATA No. 11 of 2005 has been filed by the husband, who was the respondent before the Court below, and MATA No. 13 of 2005 has been filed by the wife and children, who were petitioners there. The Civil Proceeding was filed by the wife and children with a prayer for maintenance and recovery of dower dues, besides direction for return of cash and ornaments.2. The case of the wife is that the husband was serving in military as a Jawan and was drawing salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month in the year 1983. He was sending money to his widowed mother and sister, who were spending the entire amount and not paying anything for food and clothing of the wife and children as well as for education of the children. They were also ill-treated. In July, 1990 the husband came to the matrimo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2417
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Alleging commission of criminal misconduct as set out in Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act'), prosecution has sought for action against Shri Bharat Chandra Roul, (hereinafter: referred to as the 'accused'), a public servant. It is alleged that he is guilty of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Section 8(3), of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 1990 (in short, the 'Special Act').2. Section 13, deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of the section is pressed into service against the accused. The same is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any stime during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of Sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1959Ori65
G.C. Das, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this appeal against an order of the District Judge Cuttack dated 19-10-195-1, dismissing his suit. Of the parties to this litigation, defendant 1 was the auction-purchaser of a part of the holding measuring 1.045 acres. Defendants 4 and 5 are the first cousins of the plaintiffs deceased husband and defendants 2 and 3 are purchasers of portion of the holding in dispute from defendants 4 and 5. Defendant 6 is the landlord of this holding. 2. The plaintiff commenced a suit for partition under these circumstances: The disputed holding measuring 2.03 acres was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband and defendants 4 and 5 were his first cousins. The plaintiff's whole case was that there was a severance of the joint family status between the two branches of the family and each branch, for purposes of convenience, was in actual possession of parts of the holding separately. There had never been a partition by metes and bounds. Accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori313
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a pltf.'s second appeal against the judgment of Sri C. C. Coari, Dist. J. Cuttack, affirming the judgment of Sri G. C. De, Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in O.S. No. 25 of 1938,2. Pltf. 1 is the son of one Bhagat Charan Mohanty who was impleaded as deft, a in the suit but was transposed as pltf. 2 on 9-6-40 when the trial was opened. The first pltf. who was a minor-raised the suit through his next friend, Suriyamoni Dei, said to be his father's sister, for a declaration that deft. 1 Gyanendranath Mohanty, is not the adopted son of Nrusingbo Charan Mahanty, the deceased uncle of pltf 2 of pltf. 2. He alleged that Nrusingho Oharan Mohanty had married Pramila Sundari the sister of Gyanendraca h in 1921; that on account of this relationship pltf. S was looking upon Babu Lakshmimdhar Mohanty, the natural father of deft. 1 as 'Murabi' & that Lakshtnidhar Babu had a commanding influence over pltf. a. It was further alleged that pltf. 2, Bhagati Chacan, was subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1954Ori40; 19(1953)CLT316
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a second appeal by some of the alienees from defendant 16 Abala Dibya, the widow oF one Kulamoni Pauigrahi who died on 18-5-1929. The plaintiff Indumati, claimed to be his daughter by his first wife Gurubari and sued for a declaration that the alienations made by defendant 18 in favour of the other defendants are not binding upon her reversionary interest as those alienations had not been made for legal necessity. All the defendants challenged the plaintiff's claim to have been the daughter of Kulamoni, and their allegation was that she was the daughter of Jadumoni Panigrahi, the natural brother of Kulamoni who had admittedly gone away in adoption to one Nidhi Panigrahi.2. The two important issues framed in the suit were issue No. 2: 'Is the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, the daughter of Kulamoni?' and issue no. 10 : 'Was there any legal necessity for the kabalas and are the kabalas genuine and for consideration?' The learned Munsif who tried the suit in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1591; II(2003)DMC734; 2003(I)OLR13
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. Appellant No. 1 is the husband of deceased Suryamani Patra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), Appellant Nbs. 2 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, Marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the deceased was performed on 1-3-1993 and on 19-11-1993 she died due to consumption of poison i.e. insecticidal substance. Prosecution case to the aforesaid effect is not disputed by the parties. Because of the aforesaid death of the deceased, appellants faced a trial for the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'the Act'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore on 20th January, 2000 delivered the impugned judgment of conviction conviting each of the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years for the offence under Sections 304-B/34, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 91(2001)CLT181
..... it is not possible for any wife to tolerate suet a man and to live like-a slave. the serious allegations against each other show a relationship of mutual dislike bordering on hatred,14. in this appeal the respondent-hasbahd has affirmed an affidavit bringing on recofd certain subsequent developments alleging further aggravation of the bitterness between the parties and to ..... the said disciplinary proceeding the appellant-wife herself deposed as a witness in support of the charge. the appellant-wife's brother lodged f. i. r. with the police against the respondent. tbe police enquired and submitted a final report in favour of the respondent. the appellant'sbrother thereafter filed a complaint case against the respondent in the court of the sub .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori327
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendants 1 to 15 are the applta. in this second appeal. The pltf. is the Tikayet of Kanika, The defta. are the Bahar realdents of the Mouza called Chandrasekhacpur. The suit has been brought for an injunction restraining the defts. from entering into a forest belonging to the pltf. which may for convenience be called Patia forest & from cutting & appropriating any of the jungle produce therein. The trial Ct. dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Ct. reversed it & granted the injunction & damages asked or by the pltf.2. Killa Patia in which the suit forest is a situated belong to Raja Dibyasingh Deb. On his death his brother Raghunath Deb succeeded to the Estate & on his death Maddan Mohan Dab. There was litigation relating to succession of the property between Mad'n Mohan & A .chyutananda. During the pondency of the litigation Mad an Mohan died & Achyutcanarda succeeded to the property. The estate was sold inexecution of a mtge. decree. during Achyutananda's...
Tag this Judgment!