Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-19-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori196; 40(1974)CLT267
S.K. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant from the reversing decision of the lower appellate Court in a suit for redemption.2. Ac. 1.06 of land situated in Mauza Parbatipur was usufructuarily mortgaged by the plaintiff to the defendant as security for the loan of RS. 800/-advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus transaction was embodied in a registered mortgage deed dated 1-3-1966. Possession also was delivered to the defendant that very day. This deed contained the stipulation that except in the month of Chaitra of the current year, the mortgagor shall repay the principal amount (Rs. 800/-) and thereupon the mortgagee shall release the mortgaged land and deliver khas possession thereof to the mortgagor. These facts are not in controversy.The plaintiff deposited Rs. 800/- towards the principal money under the mortgage in the Court on 4-4-1967 under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act to the account of the defendant mortgagee. The notice issued from the court in purs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-27-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Ori196
B.K. Ray, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for creating a charge upon the properties described in schedule B of the plaint for their maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50-00 per month and for Rs. 2,000-00 towards the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2. The Plaint case, in short is, as follows: Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are first cousins. Defendant No. 1 is separate in mess and property from defendant No. 2 since the time of their fathers. The properties described in Schedule B of the plaint belong to defendant No. 2 alone. Defendant No. I wanted his son to be adopted by defendant No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 opposed this and hence defendant No. 1 bore a grudge against plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 1, therefore, instigated defendant No. 2 to ill-treat the plaintiffs and to stop maintaining them. Both defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-25-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Ori217
Patra, J.1. Santosh Kumar Asar-walla who is the petitioner in both the cases is a Forest Contractor at Angul deal-ins in Genduli gum which is a minor forest produce. For the year 1970-71 (wrongly mentioned as 1969-70 in the petition), the sale of Genduli sum of Angul Forest Division was notified by the Divisional Forest Officer, Aneul (O. P. No. 3) to be held by public auction on the 20th and 21st October, 1970. The notification was published in the Orissa Gazette dated 18-9-1970. and the auction was on 20-10-1970. The petitioner's bid for Rs. 2,100/- was the highest bid and the sale was knocked down in his favour. The petitioner deposited the security money of Rs. 210/-. The fact of the petitioner be-ins the highest bidder was duly communicated to the Conservator of Forests (O. P. No. 2) who in turn communicated to the State Government (O. P. No. 1) for finalisation of the agreement. The State Government instead of finalising the sale in favour of the petitioner passed the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori29; 39(1973)CLT435
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. The opposite party instituted M. S. No. 43 of 1968 for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner. The suit was decreed and the petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 146 of 1970 from that decree to this Court. During pendency of this First Appeal, the opposite party, decree-holder filed Ex. Case No. 8 of 1970 for recovery of the decretal dues and costs. The petitioner prayed for stay of the execution of the decree in the First Appeal, and stay was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited costs which the decree-holder was at liberty to withdraw on furnishing security. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2041.55 p. towards costs and the decree-holder opposite party withdrew the same on furnishing security. The First-Appeal was, ultimately, allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. The plaintiff-opposite party, thereupon filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-31-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori105
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. To appreciate the controversy facts may be stated in chronological order. Title Suit No. 191 of 1952 filed by 27 plaintiffs against 17 defendants was decreed on 13-8-1956. Title Appeal No. 154 of 1956 filed by the defendants against the judgment decreeing the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Second Appeal No. 295 of 1959 filed by the defendants was allowed on 22-12-1961. During the pendency of the second appeal, on 23-4-1960 the plaintiffs took delivery of possession of the propertv as the defendants failed to offer security as ordered by the High Court. After their success in thesecond appeal the defendants filed Misc. Case No. 383 of 1962 under Section 144. Civil P. C. for restitution of Sch. A properties consisting of six acres of land and mesne profits of Rs. 22.764/- from 22nd of April. 1960 onwards. On 23-12-1965 the Misc. Case was allowed in favour of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1966 in January, 1966. Madhu Khuntia (appellant No. 19) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-27-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori115
Panda, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash a proposed action conveyed in Letter No. 17165 dated 31-7-1970 (Annexure 8) issued by the Secretary to the Government, Works and Transport Department, to the Chief Engineer, projects (Express Highway) suggesting leasing out of the road-side lands to the Express Highway No. 1 for agricultural and piscicultural purposes temporarily on annual basis to landless Harijans, preference being given to the Fishery Co-operative Societies of the landless Harijans.2. Facts leading to the above petition are as follows: Fortyfour decimals of land lying in village Saintipur belonging to petitioner Bishnu Charan Swain of village Padmalavpur, who is a non-Harijan, was acquired for the construction of the express Highway from Daitari to Paradip. Out of this land. 32 decimals appertain to Khata 12 and the balance to Khata 16. There was due notification for acquisition and there is no challenge that the compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-08-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori24; 39(1973)CLT539
R. N. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award of the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Balasore, dismissing the claim. 2. The appellant happens to be the mother of one Subodh Mohapatra who was travelling on 15-2-69 in a jeep bearing registration No. O. R. C. 7586 from Balasore to Soro. The claimant alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and at a considerable speed and while it was about 3 miles away from Soro at about 4 P.M. one of the rear tyres burst. The driver failed to control the vehicle and it ultimately went out of the road and capsized leading to the instantaneous death of Subodh.The jeep belongs to the respondent No. 1. An Oriya film 'Kie Kahara' was being exhibited at the Balasore Talkies during the material period. The Balasore Talkies arranged this jeep for the purpose of doing publicity work. Along with the driver and the cleaner the vehicle besides the publicity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-05-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Ori244; 1976CriLJ405
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. By order of the Full Court to initiate a proceeding for contempt, the Registrar of the High Court issued the contempt notice dated 3-7-1972 (here-inafter to be referred to as the Notice) to Shri Baradakanta Misra, the alleged contem-ner (hereinafter to be referred to as the contemner) calling upon him to appear in person and to show cause on 3-8-1972 as to why be shall not be punished or any other appropriate order not be passed against him for contempt of the High Court. On 26-7-1972 the contemner filed a petition by way of preliminary reply. On 7-8-1972 be filed his show-cause application. The contemrer filed Criminal Appeal No. 174/72 before the Supreme Court to quash the notice. Therein he made the State of Orissa a party through its Chief Secretary. The Legal Re-membrancer-cum-the ex-officio Additional Secretary, Law Department, filed an affidavit (Annexure-1) before the Supreme Court on behalf of the State giving detailed history with reference to the averment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-23-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori6
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the appellate order of the District Judge of Puri made under Section 38 (4) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. 1964 (1 of 1965) ((hereinafter referred to as tine Act). In June 1970 election for the office of the Sarpanch of the Dhanakera Grama Panchayat in the district of Puri was held. The petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 contested the said election. The petitioner having secured the highest number of votes was declared elected as Sarpanch on 29-6-1970 by the Election Officer. The opposite party No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 30 of the Act challenging the petitioner's election on the ground that the election was void as the petitioner's name was not on the elector? roll of the Dhanakera Grama Panchayat on the date appointed for receiving objections for correcting the electoral list of the Grama Panchayat and that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Puri town and he could not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-12-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Ori173; 40(1974)CLT213
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The disputed property is a house with vacant site in village Bagdihi in the Dist. of Sambalpur. Deceased Punamchand, father of deft. No. 3 and deceased Bhagirathi (original defendant No. 4) were owners of the disputed property. They executed a usufructuary mortgage bond (Ext. 3) on 19-7-1911 in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. In 1939 deceased Kashiram Marwari trespassed upon the disputed property. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs brought Title Suit No. 40 of 1940 in the court of the Munsif, Sambalpur, for declaration of their title as mortgagees and for recovery of possession from Kashiram Marwari. The suit was decreed on 29-4-1941. The trial Court decree was confirmed in S. A. No. 13 of 1942 on 18-9-46. Defendants 3 and 4 were parties to that litigation. It was held in that suit that defendants 3 and 4 were the owners of the disputed property, Kashiram was a trespasser and the predecessors-in-inte-rest of the plaintiffs were the usufructuary...
Tag this Judgment!