Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori118
Ray, C.J.1. The short synopsis of facts giving rise to this litigation are that the disputed lands were Bhogra lands within the proprietary right of one Bida Babu. The said right has now been acquired by the plff. & on the strength of the proprietary right he sues for possession of the lands in ejectment of the defts. It is deft. 4 alone who is interested in the controversy. He demurs to the plff's. suit on the plea that the lands had been demised on a permanent lease to his father (Kumuda) in the year 1915, & that since then his father & after him he himself have been in continuous possession. The only break, if any, in the continuity, as is put by the deft, consisted in one 'Lambardar' occupying it on his behalf. The plff. in the year 1939, brought a suit in ejectment against 'Lambardar & obtained a decree for possession. He put the decree into execution & got writ of delivery of possession executed. Whether, as a result of such execution, he got actual possession is a matter, in dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1949CriLJ1013
Ramaswami, J.1. This reference is made under Section 874, Or. F. 0,, by the Sessions Judgo of Ganjampuri for confirmation of the sentence of death imposed on Srinarayain Marwari.2. In the same trial, Saraswati Dei mother of Srinarain has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to transportation for life.3. Srinarain and Saraswati have filed appeals, which have been heard along with the reference.4. The case for the prosecution is that Bhagaban Das Joshi (p. w. l) had taken lease of the upper floor of a house owned by Jamula Narasimham. He had sub-let a portion of the floor to Mangal Chand. Bhagaban Das and his wife Anuohi cocupied the southern Bet of rooms. Mangal Chand, his wife Saraswati and Srinarain cocupied the northern rooms. It is alleged that for some months pares there had been dispute between Bhagaban Das and Mangal Chand as regards payment of rent. On one occasion Srinarain had threatened to assault Bhagaban Das, There were also quarrels between ladies of the two fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori14
Reuben, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated 26th July 1944, reversing a decision of the Munsif of Kendrapara, dated 13th July 1943. It raises a question which has friend the subject of several decisions of this Court in its Cuttack Circuit: vide Rasihananda Mallik v. Gangadhar Panaa 1 cut. L.T. 19 and Maheswar Mahanty v. Dayanidhi Mahanty 1 cut L.T 12. Narayan Sahu 1 Cut. L.T. 19 and Badhamohan Thakur v. Bipin Behari A.I.R 1938 Pat 505.2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit was filed as a suit for the declaration of his title to and for the recovery of possession of the property in suit, but it is really an action for the redemption of a mortgage affecting that property. The property in suit belonged to one Bhagwan Patra, who, on 9th July 1941, executed a sale deed (EX. A) for RS. 630 purporting to transfer it to Udayanath Naik (defendant). The consideration was made up as follows Left with Udayanath Naik to be paidto the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori77
Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, refusing to allow the defendant to amend his written statement. The plaintiff filed a money-suit for the recovery of Rs. 59,000 against Vijaya Stores, the petitioners before us, alleged to be due under an agreement for the supply of rice to the petitioners. One of the contentions raised by the defendant firm was that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to sue as he, along with one Brajakishore Naik, jointly executed the agreement in favour of the defendants for supply of rice. The plaintiff thereupon filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 and under Section 151, Civil P.C., to implead Brajakishore Naik as a pro forma defendant. The Court directed the addition of Brajakishore as defendant 2 and the plaint was accordingly amended. Summons was issued to defendant 2 and on 4th August 1945 defendant 2 filed his written statement. On 5th September 1945 defendant 1 filed a petition for amending his wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori1
Panigrahi, J.1. The circumstances leading to this litigation are not in controversy. The plaintiff, Thakur Sri Radharamna Swami, was admittedly the family idol of Ranganath Deb Goawami, defendant 2 in this case. The father of defendant 2 executed a 'kebala' dated 21st November 1909 transferring hisshebayati right, the in am lands endowed for the service of the deity and the plaintiff idol itself to the Guru of the defendant 1 the then Mahant of Gangamatha Math, at Puri, and put him in possession of the plaintiff deity. The Government of Madras resumed the in am grant on 4th November 1921 as it had been alienated, and the purpose of the grant had failed. Defendant 2 thereupon applied to the Government of Madras for handing over the net assessment of the village to him so that the seba puja of the deity may be continued. On objection being taken by Defendant 1, the alliance, the parties were referred to establish their rights in a civil Court and the collections from the village were dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori11
Ray, C.J.1. The decree-holder is the appellant. He obtained a decree on 12th December 1936, against Kadha Prasad Bose, husband of Sashimukhi, the present respondent. The first execution case was No. 823 of 1937. The disputed property was attached on 19th December 1937 along with certain other items. After that attachment, on 8th March 1938, Sri Bhagabat Gosain, through marfatdar, Sashimukhi, advanced a claim, under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. (claim Case No. 36 of 1938). As the date for sale had been fixed for 19th March 1938, the claim case was dismissed, as filed too late. At this stage, the execution case was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, on 19th March 1938, where it was numbered as Execution Case No. 88/823. On 16th August 1938, Radha Prasad Bose died. There was no substitution of his legal representative, namely, Sashimukhi, before the sale was held. The decree-holder became the purchaser in the execution sale on 17th August 1938. Sashimukhi put i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori37
Ray, C.J.1. The questions, referred to the Full Bench are:(1) Whether Section 10, Orissa Money-lenders Act (Act III [3] of 1939), as amended by Section 4, Orissa Moneylenders Amendment Act (Act XVIII [18] of 1947), is retrospective so as to control decrees to be passed in suits and appeals brought before, bat pending at the time, of the commencement of the Amending Act; and(2) whether in giving effect to the provisions of the section, in a suit based on an agreement by which the parties have agreed to treat the sum-total of the past liabilities, in respect of sum actually lent and the unpaid balance of interest due thereon, as the principal of a fresh loan-transaction, carrying stipulated rate of interest for the future, the Court can go behind the said agreement and limit the decree on account of interest, for the period preceding the institution of the suit, to a sum, which together with any amount already realised as interest, is not greater than the amount originally advanced; orIn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori73
Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors, against an order of the District Judge, setting aside that of an Executing Court, who purporting to act under Section 151, Civil P.C., set aside the sale, held in execution of a decree for rent. The question, whether it was a rent decree, pure and simple, or a money-decree, does not arise in the case.2. The facts, shortly stated, are that a decree for Rs. 668-8-3 was passed against the judgment-debtors, for arrears of rent due in respect of a tenure. Execution was taken out, and the tenure was sold to the highest bidder being the respondent in this appeal. Two petitions were filed in the Executing Court, one by Muralidhar Bhattar, purporting to be one under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., and the other by Gopi Kissan Bhattar under Order 21, Rule 9. While these petitions were lying un-disposed of, Muralidhar filed a second application labelling it as one under Section 151, Civil P.C., seeking the relief of setting aside the sale, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori99
Panigrahi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the District Judge, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. The plaintiffs are the descendants of one Nidhi Gountia, who was admittedly the Gountia of the village of Kermali within the ambit of the defendant's zamindari of Borasambar. The plaintiffs' case is that Nidhi Gountia held the village on a Thikadari tenure and that by way of a family arrangement had allotted the 'sir' and 'bhogra' lands of the village to his sons; that the lands described in Schedule B of the plaint had been allotted to his son, Maheswar; and the lands described in Schedule C had similarly been allotted to his son, Gangadhar. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 3-6 are, respectively, the descendants of Maheswar and Gangadhar. The lands described in Sch. D were, according to the plaintiffs, allotted to three other sons of Nidhi, who are not concerned with the present dispute, and those properties are not in suit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!