Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori142
Ray, C.J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 342, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of RS. 100/- for the first offence and six months rigorous imprisonment for the second.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant abducted the girl (p. W. l) while she was on her way back after purchase of paddy in Nuapali village in company with about 9 or 10 others each of whom had a bag load of paddy on the head. The accused happened to be by the side of the road when Chandramma and patty were proceeding to the aforesaid village for purchase of paddy. He also was found loitering on the road near a tank while they were returning. He came with a stick from behind the girl and pushed down the bag load of paddy from her head and forcibly carried her away in his arms lifting her body by putting one-hand under the knees and another around the neck. In this condition, he took her to some distance and then dragged her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori306
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the judgment-debtors against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing in part their objection under Schedule 7, C. P. C. to the execution of a maintenance decree obtained by the respondent Bhuyani Trinayani Dasi against her late husband Srichandan Bhuyan Btuudafoan Chandra Roy in O. S. No. 484 of 1908. The maintenance decree (Ex. P) was passed on 16.8.1909 and several items of zamidari properties of Sriohandan Bhuyan Brundaban Chandra Roy were charged with liability for the maintenance of the respondent. Two of those items are touzi Nos. 1453 and 1463 appertaining to Balasore Collectorate. The maintenance decree was slightly modified when the litigation was taken up to the High Court in 1917. But for the purpose of the present appeal it is unnecessary to discuss in detail the history of that litigation. It is sufficient to note that the aforesaid two touzis and several other properties of Sriehandan Bhuyan Brundaban Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori223
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Zamindar of Shergada Estate for delivery of possession of 39.49 acres of land in village Brahmahatya within the ambit of his zamindari and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 60, 107 and 115 are his 'hetta' or private lands and that the defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and 20 took them on lease for Fasli 1348 and entered upon the lands as his tenants, that the lease was renewed by a registered document for the subsequent Fasli, but that at the instigation of one Gobind Pradhan the defendants refused to surrender possession and claimed occupancy rights in them. The dispute between the parties led to initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order upholding the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to file the suit for declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the said de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori42
Panigrahi, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondent plaintiff for recovery of damages for an alleged breach of contract to sell 5 bales of KKK sarees by the appellant. 2. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No. l, the appellant, is the proprietor of Jagjiv Rao Mills, Gwalior, and that he entered into a contract for the sale of five bales of cotton sarees on 4th June 1941 through their local Agents, Messrs. Baharilal Madanlal, who were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. It ia alleged that the contrast was entered into on the representation of defendants 2 and 3 who showed a sample of the sarees contracted for. This contract was formally confirmed by the appellant, defendant l, on 12th June 1941 and the terms of the contract are embodied in a printed agreement which is Ex. A in the case. The plaintiff's case is that he made several demands on defend ants 2 and 3 to supply the contracted articles bub that they failed to fulfil the terms of the contra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori240
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Cuttack, reversing the judgment of the Munsif, Cuttack, and dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for eviction of the defendants from certain plots appertaining to khata no. 197 in village Deulsahi and for other consequential reliefs.2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Aul estate and village Daulsahi is within his zamindari. In the last settlement (1922 32), the said khata (ex. 6) was recorded in the names of defendants 1 to 4 as 'sthitiban' with a rental of Rs. 11-7-0 but it was further noted that the rental was fixed at a low figure in view of the tendering of 'chela' service by the tenants to the zamindar. In the Revision Settlement records-of-rights finally published in 1911 (Exs. 6 & 5-a) the same rental was shown as payable; but as regards the status of the tenants the following entry was made: 'Chela jagiri ghenan'.3. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint was that t...
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!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori36
Ray, C.J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants of whom defendant 3 is dead and the other defendants on record are his legal representatives. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession under the following circumstances. The plaintiff is a cosharer landlord of the estate within the ambits of which the disputed holding lies. He instituted rent Suit No. 5633 of 1927-28 for recovery of his share of rent but impleaded 12 other cosharer landlords as pro forma defendants in order to constitute the suit in the form conformable to the provisions of Section 199 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. He obtained a decree and there is no dispute that the said decree was a rent decree and would carry the same effect as that obtained either by a sole landlord or the entire body of landlords for the total arrears of rent due in respect of the holding. As the holding, however, had been mortgaged to the appellants in the year 1914 and a suit for enforcement of the mortgage wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori176
Panigrahi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for confirmation, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession with damages,from defendant No. 1 of 2.10 acres of land comprised in C. S. holding No. 165 of village Guhali.2. The plaintiff's case is that He purchased the suit lands at a Civil Court sale on 15-9-1941 and was put in possession through court, and was in possession till 3-1-43 when he was ousted by defendant No. 1 who claims to have purchased the same lands at a Rent Sale in execution of a decree obtained by defendant No. 4 in the Rent Court in suit No. 17752 of 1940-41.3. The admitted facts are that defendants 2 and 3 were originally the recorded tenants and defendant No. 2 ultimately became the sole tenant as he had purchased defendant No. 3's interest prior to the rent suit. Defendant No. 4 is the landlord of the holding and defendant No. 5 is the Court of Wards, who have taken charge of the management of the estate belonging to defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori225
Panigrahi, J.1. The plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts below, are the sons of one Fakir Charan Rai who held a revenue-free or muafi grant of the village of Nunia Jampalli in Bargarh Sub. Division of Samblpur district. The defendants are purchasers of Fakir's interest at a court sale in execution of a money decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the village of Nunia Jampalli was granted by HaharajaChhatar Sai to the family of one Lambodar Bai, an ancestor of the plaintiffs, on a permanent and hereditary tenure for doing pujaseba, in the temple of Sri Samaleawari at Samblpur. It is alleged that the grant being one burdened with service and being a Denottar grant, is inalienable and that the court sale in execution of a decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father is void. The plaintiffs admit that the village was being enjoyed in three shares, i.e., an 8 annas share belonging to one Joydeb Bai, a 5 annag 4 pies share belonging to Fakir B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori64
Ray, J.1. This arises out of a petition by the defendant in a suit for recovery of loan due upon a handnote, executed by defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 75 including the interest due thereon. The original creditor was one Baishnab Charan Mohapatra since dead. His son and father left behind are respectively defendants 3 and 4 (pro forma). Defendant 2 is the nephew of defendant 1 and is sought to be made liable, the debt being a family debt. The plaintiff comes to sue by virtue of an assignment of certain debts that belonged to Baishnab Charan including the present one effected by a deed of assignment executed on behalf of the legal heirs of Baishnab as well as the Karta of the then existing family, namely, defendant 4 (father of Baishnab). The defendants contest the suit on two grounds: (i) that the assignment does not bind the interest of Baishnab's widow who must have acquired an interest on the death of her husband in the property as she on her own account was not a party to the assign...
Tag this Judgment!