Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori198
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal in a suit for partition of plot No. 763, Khata No. 360 bearing an area 190 in the town of Cuttack. The plaintiff claims eight annas interest by virtue of his purchase. The Khasmahal is the landlord and the interest of the tenant is shown as Patadari with an annual rent payable. The terms and conditions of the tenancy are incorporated in periodical leases and kabuliyats which are renewed from time to time. In the Khatian papers, Chowdhuri Ramahari Das and Chowdhury Jayahari Das and several other Chowdhuries (a)) members of Bhingarpur Chowdhury family) stand recorded. It is not controverted that in partition Suit No. 69 of 1924 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, the lands, in dispute, were allotted to the shares of Ohowdhury Bamahari and Chowdhury Jayahari, each having eight annas share therein, Jaihari's interest was sold in execution of a money decree in the Court of the Second Munsif of Outtack in Execution Case No. 991/36 and it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori233
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge, Cuttack, dismissing the petition of the creditor in insolvency proceedings praying for distribution of the assets of the insolvent. In Misc. case no. 17 of 1939, one Panu Singh alias Pranbandhu Singh was adjudicated insolvent on 12th February 1940. On 2lst December 1940, the creditor filed a petition for the purpose of avoiding some sales alleged to have been made by the insolvent just before the presentation of the petition in insolvency, and by its order dated, 17th May 1941, the Courts set aside the sales. The purchaser went up in appeal to the High Court but his appeal was dismissed on 26th April 1945. The insolvent was a party to this appeal. Meanwhile, however, the date fixed for the application for discharge had expired and the insolvent had failed to apply for discharge within the time fixed by the Court. Consequently, on 16th March 1942, the District Judge passed an order of annulment and the adju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori46
Panigrahi, J.1. The judgment debtors in a compromise decree for maintenance are the appellants before as.2. The decree provided that the judgment. debtors should pay maintenance to the decreeholder at the rate of Rs. 6 a month and in case of default of payment of the allowance for six consecutive months the judgment-debtors shall be liable to pay maintenance at Rs. 12 a month. The judgment-debtors defaulted payment for six months consecutively and the decree, holder assigned his decree to opposite parties 1 and 2 (respondents). When the decree was put in execution, the judgment-debtors (appellants) raised several objections one of which has been debated before as. The contention of the judgment-debtors is that the stipulation embodied in the compromise decree, to the effect that the judgment-debtors shall pay double the monthly maintenance allowance in case of default for six consecutive months, is in the nature of a penal class and cannot be enforced in execution.3. The Courts below o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori169
Ray, C.J. 1. The petition ig directed against an order of remand passed by Sri B. C. Das, District Judge of Cuttaok-Dbenkanal, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87 of 1948, reversing an order dated, 4th qetober 1948 of Sri B. S. Patnaik, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in Money Suit No. 8/342 of 1948/47. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 2193-12-0 being the sum borrowed with interest accrued thereon, under two handnotes executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner. The defendant resisted the suit, while accepting that the hand-notes were genuine and for consideration, with a plea of payment. The material date on which and since when the events giving rise to this application occurred is 3rd July 1948. On that date, the plaintiff was ready to go on with the hearing of the suit, and filed a list of witnesses. The defendant interposed a plea, as a barrier to the suit, by a petition purporting to be one undtr Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. for recording as a compromise an aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori207
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the District Magistrate of Puri rejecting the appellant's claim for compensation.2. The appellant is the widow of one Parikhit Panda who had been engaged as a motor driver by the respondent in September 1946. The respondent had a temporary permit to plya bus (O. R. P. 265) for hire between Khurda and Banpur in Puri District. On 24th September 1946, while the appellant's husband was driving the said motor bus he met with an accident inconsequence of which he sustained severe injurieswhich resulted in his death. The bus dashed against a tree while proceeding at a somewhat high speed and the driver and some other passengers sustained fatal injuries. The police nude the usual investigation and submitted final report to the effect that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver but that in view of his death no could be taken.3. The learned District Magistrate, relying ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1954Ori52
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal; It arises out of a suit for partition in respect of 253 acres of homestead land in Cuttack town bearing plot No. 74 in Khata No. 553 of the current settlement. The plaintiff claims title to a ten annas-eight-pies share thereof. He claims five-annas four pies share under a deed of gift, Ext, 1, dated 7-1-41 and the other five-annas-four pies under a sale-deed, Ext. 2 dated 9-6-1944. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit in respect of a five-annas-four-pies share, but have dismissed it in respect of the other five-annas-four-pies share. The plaintiff has accordingly brought the second appeal in respect of the five-annas-four-pies share for which his suit has been dismissed.2. The suit-plot originally belonged to three brothers, Nakfodi, Gangai and Chaitan. Defendant 1 is the son of Nakfodi. The plaintiff's case is that all the three brothers were separated and he claims five annas four pies share unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori183
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, granting a decree to the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs. 7530 as her dower debt due from the estate of her deceased husband. The point debated on this appeal is whether a Court, while rejecting an application to sue in forma pauperis, can grant time to the petitioner for payment of court-fee and whether in such a case the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the day of the presentation of the pauper application.2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff started her suit with an application under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil P. C. praying for permission to sue in forma pauperis. That application sets out in detail all the particulars required for a plaint, states the cause of action and the relief that the plaintiff is entitled to, and in the prayer portion contains a request (1) that the petitioner be permitted to sue as a pauper; and (2) that she may be given a decree fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori213
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands which has been dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The suit lands admittedly belonged to the plaintiff's family. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is that the father of plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 allowed defendant 2, some years ago to occupy the suit-lands by some arrangement with her and that defendant 2 has allowed her son, defendant 1, to cultivate the lands since she is unable to take care of herself; that they are not aware of the arrangement under which the defendants wore let into possession, but that if it is found that the lands are charged with any sum, they are willing to pay up the same The case of the defendants is that between the years 1927 and 1930, the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 borrowed from time to time various sums of money aggregating to Rupees 1061 12-0 from defendant 2 on the security of the suit-lands; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori217
Jagannadhalas, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to set aside and alienation and to recover the property comprised therein from the possession of the defendants. Defendant 4 and plaintiff 1 are the sons of one Bhuban Meher. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant 4. The alienation sought to be impeached is a sale-deed, Ex C, dated 1st March 1933 of lands of the extent of 1-5 acres (it may be noted that the plaint mentions lands of 1.26 decimals) which admittedly are the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 7. The sale-deed purports to have been executed by Bhuban and his two sons defendant 4 and plaintiff 1. Defendant 4 has signed it also for his minor sons 6 to 7 and plaintiff 1 for his then minor son, plaintiff 2. The alienees under the sale-deed are the brothers of Bhuban Meher, viz., defendant 3 and the father of defendants 1 and 2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori147
Panigrahi, J.1. The plaintiff raised the suit for the recovery of mortgage moneys advanced under two mortgage deeds, viz. Ex. 2 dated 12-5-23 and Ex. 1 dated 1-4-30 executed by the defendant, for Rs. 25/- and Rs. 100/- respectively. The lands mortgaged were plot No. 230 and plots' Nos. 1016 to 1018. The documents describe themselves as Dakhal Bandak and recite that the properties are put in possession of the mortgagee in lieu of interest and that the mortgagor shall not claim an account of the rents and profits issuing out of the lands, nor shall the mortgagee demand any interest for the sum lent. They further recite that if the principal amount is paid within the period fixed for redemption, the mortgaged properties shall stand redeemed. Under the first document the period fixed for redemption was nine years, while under the other document it was one year. The recital on which there has been controversy between the parties is as follows:'If you are dispossessed you can file a suit for...
Tag this Judgment!