Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori342
Narasimhsm, J.1. These two appeals are by the defts. against tbe judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Bargarh & decreeing the pltf's. suit for a declaration that they have the sole and exclusive right to appoint & dismiss a Nariha who id a village servant & that the revenue authorities have no right to interfere in any way with the exercise of that right by the pltfs.2. Pltf. 1 is the Lambardar Gaontia of Mouza Guclesira which is a Gaontiahi village in Sambalpur district. Pltfs. 2 to 5 are the Punches of the said village who are elected by the raiyats for the purpose of assisting the Lambardar in the management of the village. In the last settlement deft, l was recorded as a Nariha in respect of 9'42 acres of land which were held by him rent, free (Ex. 2 a). In the wazib-ul-arz of the village (ex 2) it is recorded that the Nariha may be dismissed & deprived of his service lands by the Lambardar & the Punches for failure to render due se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori241
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These sis second appeals arise out of six suits in which a common judgment was delivered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant in all these appeals is the Maharaja of Parlakimedi. These six suits along with two other suits arise is the following circumstances. The plaintiff-Maharaja in the coarse of administration of his estate and collection of rents, obtains decrees for arrears of rent as against defaulting tenants. One section of his office staff attends to the steps necessary to be taken for realisation of these decrees by execution in various Courts. Monies are drawn from time to time from the Estate Treasury for expenses in connection with these execution proceedings towards court-fees, batta memos, vakalats, etc., and entrusted to the clerk or clerks concerned for getting necessary steps taken in the Courts. In or about August 1938, the plaintiff's Dewan received an anonymous information that the money drawn in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori266
Ray C.J.1. This is a petn. by defts. 4 to 11 for revising an order passed by Munaif of Cuttack restoring a suit which had been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, C. P. C. The suit was one for specific performance of contract of lease of some waste lands as well as Nijchas lands. The contract had been entered into by defts. 1 to 2, who admittedly are the proprietors. The contract is said to have been entered into on different dates (29-9-44 & 6-2-45) in respect of wastelands & Nijchas lands respectively. The defts. l & 2, however, executed a registered permanent lease in respect of the very same lands in favour of deft. 8 on 4-8-45 The latter about two years after his lease sold his lease-hold interest to defts. 4 to 12 of whom defts 4 to 11 are the petnrs. before us. Admittedly, defts, 4 to 12 were actively contesting the suit. The position in relation to the other defts. is that defts. l to 2 filed & written statement alleging that as the pltf. had failed to pay the promised considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori35
Ray, C.J.1. It is a defendants' appeal in a suit for enforcement of two mortgages executed by the father of the appellants on 13th September 1929 and 28th September 1929 for considerations of Rs. 110 and Rs. 100 respectively. The plaintiff had filed a suit previously for enforcement of the terms of the mortgages being suit No. 883 of 1940 in the Second Munsif's Court, Cuttack. That suit had been set down for hearing on 13th December 1941. There were no steps taken on behalf of the plaintiff on that date nor did either the plaintiff or his pleader respond to the call of the Court. The defendants had applied for 'time on the ground of illness, In these circumstances, the suit was dismissed for default. The order disposing of the suit reads as follows:Defendants 2 and 3 apply fat time on the ground of illness and plaintiff takes no steps. Plaintiff and his pleader do not appear on call. The suit is dismissed for default.Defendant 1 of that suit was the executant of the mortgage bonds and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori31
Ray, C.J.1. It is defendants appeal in a suit for ejectment by the respondent-landlord. The disputed lands had been divided into two different schedules 'Ka' and 'Kha. 'Ka' schedule, lands were recorded in the revisional settlement survey as patadoraghena. In the column for rent, Rs. 4-7-11 pies were stated to be the rent, but down below IB as. 11 pies were indicated to be the ghenanjama. The selfsame holding came to be recorded in what is known as current, settlement record of rights as occupancy holding of defendant 1 and widow of his brother, deceased Ghana Ear. The rent payable in respect of this holding was shown at Rs. 4-8-0 substantially the same as the rent shown in the. rentcolumn of the revisional survey. The local case in the current settlement was shown as 2 as. 3 pies. The area of this holding is 3 acres and 66 decimals Schedule 'Kha' land has been recorded in both the settlements as 'madhyasa-twadhikari' (tenure). In the revisional survey, there were the additional words ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori18
Ray, C.J.1. It is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed 4 acres of lands said to have been purchased by him from defendant 12 on 10th July 1948. Besides, he claims mesne profits of Rs. 216-8-0 for having been unlawfully kept out of possession by defendants 1 to 11. Defendant 12, the plaintiffs' vendor, on his part had acquired the properties by a sale-deed dated 13th May 1938 executed by Gourang (father of defendant 3), Mohan, defendant 1, Baji (father of defendants 4 and 5) and Arjuna (defendant 2), who at the time along with certain other members, who are defendants in the case, constituted a Hindu Mitaksbara joint family. Defendants 1 to 11 contested the suit on the ground that the transaction represented by the sale-deed in favour of defendant 12 was a fictitious one, it having been intended by the parties to execute a banami document. Besides, defendants 3 to 11 raised further plea that in case the plea of benami fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori250
Panigrahi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed in a suit by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was let into his house as a monthly tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14, bat that the defendant was highly irregular in the payment of rent necessitating the filing of two suits by the plaintiff, to recover arrears of rent. The defendant again fell into arrears and the plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to terminate the tenancyby the service of a notice to quit on the defendant. The defendant refused to accept the noticeand hence the, suit. The defendant's plea wasthat he is protected against eviction by theprovisions of the House Rent Control Order andthat he was willing to pay up all the arrears ofrent. He also questioned the validity of thenotice to quit and denied his liability to paydamages. 2. The Corts below have concurrently found that the notice served on the defendant to quit, terminating the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori29
Ray, C.J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration of-title and recovery of possession of Section 70 acres of land said to have been inherited by the plaintiff from her deceased husband (Dhruba) but now possessed, by the defendant by virtue of delivery of possession given by the rent execution Court at Jaipur on the strength of an auction purchase which took place some time in the year 1987. The delivery of possession is dated 28th November 1987 and the present suit commenced on 16th July 1943.2. In order to appreciate the questions raised, it is necessary to state certain facts. The disputed lands 'constituted one occupancy holding which was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband (Dhruba) and his brother (Brundaban). Both the brothers were in joint occupation of the same till they separated and divided the family property some time about 50 years before the suit. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in that family partition the disputed lands fell comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori41
Ray, C.J.1. It is a defendant 1's appeal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed property which constitutes an occupancy holding in Touzi No. 3019 in the district of Cuttack. Defendant 5 was the original owner of the occupancy holding. He had usufructorily mortgaged the same to defendent 2 and father of defendant 3 who were recorded mortgagees. Ultimately, defendants 6 to 9 purchased the holding in execution of the mortgage decree before 1938. An ex parte decree in a rent suit was obtained against the recorded tenants on 27-8-1941. The decree was put into execution on 3-1-1941 in which an order to issue attachment against the holding was passed on 4-4-1941. The attachment was effected on 30-4- 1941. Before effectuation of the attachment and after the commencement of the execution, that is, on 25-4-1941, the plaintiff purchased the holding and it can be premised without any controversy that by such purchase he acquired the right of occupancy and all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori300
Ray, C.J.1. This is a pltf's appeal in a suit for recovery of possession or in the alternative for redemption of the disputed properties which have been mortgaged as a simple mtge. on 13-9-1913. The disputed lands are 19.87 acres of which 15.44 are tenanted & the rest are Khasdakhali lands. During the subsistence of the mtge. the deft, came into possession of the disputed lands under the provisions of Section 225, Orissa Tenancy Act, Binoe 27.11-1934. The present suit was instituted on 19.11-1943 with the prayer that the debt with interest at 12 1/2 p.c. p.a, that accrued due under Schedule 25 & the mtge. dues under the simple mtge. had been discharged by the date of the institution of the suit & that the pltf. was entitled to recover the properties from the deft, free of previous simple mtge. as well as of the charge created under Schedule 25. The alternative relief of the pltf. was that in case the mtge. still existed & the mtge. money or any part of it was still due he may be allowe...
Tag this Judgment!