Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: orissa Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.030 seconds)

Aug 13 1956 (HC)

Gandu Behera and ors. Vs. Bala Behera

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-13-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ori237

mohapatra, j. 1. this second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate court arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. it is the admitted case of both parties that the propertyin suit belonged to kangali behera who died prior to 1922. the plaintiff claims to be the first cousin of kangali. kangali died leaving his widow sabi bewa. sabi having died in the year 1951, thepresent suit has been brought by the plaintiff for recovery of possession. defendant no. 1 (gandu behera) is the son of sabi through her second husband. defendants 2 to 4 are the transferees in respect of portions of the disputed property. 2. the defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff an several allegations that the plaintiff is not the next reversioner of kangali; that sabi had obtained absolute rights in respect of the disputed property. 3. it appears from ext. 3 that the disputed property was allotted to sabi bewa, the widow of kangali by way of maintenance in a compromise decree in a suit brought by sabi for maintenance in the year 1922 and that she would be entitled to the widow's estate in the disputed property. it has been found by both the courts below that the plaintiff is the first cousin and is the next reversioner of deceased kangali. there is no dispute over the position also that a short time after the death of kangali, sabi had married for the second time. these and other findings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1956 (HC)

Chintamoni Padhan and ors. Vs. Paika Samal and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori136

panigrahi, c.j.1. the litigation giving rise to this appeal has had a chequered career. the plaintiffs own 16.67 acres of land recorded in khata no. 32 of mouza santhasara within the state of dhenkanal. these lands were being enjoyed in four separate shares plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 having one share each and the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 being the other cosharer.sometime prior to 1930 plaintiff 1 leased out ft small portion of the holding, measuring 1.28 acres, for cultivation on bhag. the tahsildar of the state recommended the resumption of the entire holding on the ground that the executant had mortgaged the lands without the authority of the state, and on 26-1-1931 the ruler of dhenkanal ordered resumption of the entire holding. thereafter the lands were re-settled, on 21-9-1932, with the present defendant 2 and the father of the present defendants 3, 4 and 5.by an order of the ruler, dated 21-11-1932 their names were mutated and pattas were granted in due course. but the plaintiffs did not surrender possession to the new tenants. they averred that they were still in possession of the homestead lands recorded in the aforesaid khata though the defendants had taken forcible possession of the cultivated lands in january 1937. the plaintiffs complained to the chief minister of the state who by an order dated 7-12-1944, directed them to file a suit in the civil court and establish their title to the suit lands.the present suit was accordingly filed on 23-5-1945 for a declaration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1956 (HC)

Bhuyan Shyam Sunder Mohapatra and anr. Vs. Ch. Nilakantha Das and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori165

p.v.b. rao, j.1. civil revision no. 260 of 1949 and first appeal no. 44 of 1951, involve common questions of fact and law and are heard together. they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. civil revision no. 260 of 1949 arises out of an order passed by the learned subordinate judge of cuttak in misc. case no. 1 of 1949 on an application filed by the petitioners, who will be referred to hereafter as mortgagees, under sections 151, 152 and 153, civil p. c. for amendment of the decree and judgment passed in a suit for foreclosure.3. first appeal no. 44/51 is against the decree and judgment of the additional subordinate judge of cuttack, in original suit no. 9/49. the suit was filed by the plaintiffs (mortgagees) for a declaration of their title to the properties described in schedule b and for delivery of possession of the same, or in the alternative for a claim of a sum of rs. 5922-12-0 being the value of the suit property from defendant 1.the petitioners in misc. case no. 1 of 1949 and the plaintiffs in original suit no. 9 of 1949 are the same. defendant 40 in the original suit is the mother of these plaintiffs who are the sons of one bhuyan bhaskar chandra mohapatra, who died in 1938, & is the original mortgagee. defendants 4 to 39 are the co-sharers of defendant 1 who are pro forma defendants.defendant 1 borrowed rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiffs' father on 13-4-32 on a registered mortgage by conditional sale, the properties mortgaged being situated in the districts of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1956 (HC)

State of Orissa Vs. Indian Chemical Products Ltd. and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-22-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ori203

p.v.b. rao, j. 1. this is an application filed by the state of orissa through the secretary to the government of orissa, finance department under section 38 of the indian companies act (act vii of 1913) praying to order that the register of members of the company (the indian chemical products limited). opposite party no. i be rectified by inserting therein the name of the petitioner as the holder of 7500 fully paid up shares in the company being shares nos. 1 to 7500, scrip no. 12, in the place of opposite party no. 2. the maharaja of mayurbhanj. 2. according to the petitioner's allegations, the indian chemical products ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the company, was incorporated on 29-11-47 as a company limited by shares with its registered office at baripada, district mayurbhanj now in orissa. the capital of the company is rs. 25,00,000/- divided into 25,000 shares of rs. 100/- each and according to the balance sheet of the company filed by the registrar of joint stock companies, orissa, the subscribed capital of the company is rs. 7,75,000/- being the fully paid up capital of 7750 shares. out of these 7750 shares, opposite party no. 2, the maharaja of mayurbhanja, is the registered holder of 7500 fully paid up shares of the value of rs. 7,50,000/-. the objects of the company, according to the memorandum of association annexure a (the annexures to the petition filed by the petitioner are marked a, b, c, etc. and the annexures filed along with the counter- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1956 (HC)

Lingraj Misra Vs. Ananta Misra and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-21-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ori63

mohapatra, j.1. this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1949 of sri r. c. misra, subordinate judge of berhampur, in a suit where the main prayer is for partition of the properties described in schedules a to j. one gopinath misra had three sons, pandabo, bacho and agadhu. plaintiff lingaraj is the son of agadhu. his younger brother banamali died sometime in the year 1938-39.ananta (defendant 1), who was the natural born son of agadhu, was adopted by pandaoo. there is no dispute about this adoption. bacho died leaving behind two sons mukunda and madano (defendants 6 and 7 respectively). defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1. defendants 6 and 7 and 8 to 11 are impleaded in the suit as they have got interests in the properties described in schedules d and e only. the other defendants are subsequent alienees in respect of some items of properties in suit.2. the main contest in the suit is as between plaintiff lingaraj and defendant 1 ananta. the plaintiff's versions of the case are that on 26-11-1920 his father agadhu, defendant 1 ananta and defendants 6 and 7 effected a partition of the family properties and executed a registered deed amongst themselves.as per the deed of partition, which is ex. a in the present case, a schedule properties were allotted to the share of agadhu, the properties mentioned in b schedule of the plaint (which is equivalent to sen. c of the deed of partition) fell to the share of defendant 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1956 (HC)

Madan Mohan Mohapatra and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-30-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori171; 22(1956)CLT145; 1956CriLJ1083

narasimham, j. 1. this is an appeal from the judgment of the sessions judge of mayurbhanj convicting the appellants under sections 147, 148, 326 and 326/149, i.p.c. and sentencing them to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. 2. the appellants are all residents of village ambo, p. s. anandapur in the district of keonjhar. it is admitted that there are two parties in that village hostile to each other. one party is led by the zamindar of the village known as shri bhu-yan sarat chandra mangaraj mohapatra and the rival party is led by appellant harihar patnaik. the trouble seems to have arisen sometime after the abolition of the zamindary by the state government. the zamindar then transferred some of the communal lands of the village in favour of his son, wife and family deity. his rival party, however, challenged these transfers and agitated the matter before the higher authorities. there was a ferry across the river baitarani which flows by the side of the village and while the zamindar was claiming the ferry as his own, the other villagers were claiming it as sarbasadharan property. the harijans of the village, however, were on the side of the zamindar. one jagabandhu majhi (who was acquitted in the lower court) was the ferry man and he brought a criminal case against the zemindar and 38 other persons alleging that they had forcibly taken away his boats on 25-6-53. that case ended in acquittal. the zamindar, in his turn, brought a counter case against his rivals for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1956 (HC)

Ramachandra Deb and ors. Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-02-1956

Reported in : 23(1957)CLT324

narasimham, c.j.1. these are applications by six of the ex-zamindars of ganjam district under article 226 or the constitution praying for relief against the state of orissa, from apprehended danger to their property situated in portions of ganjam agency tracts known as 'maliahs' by threat of executive action. the questions of law involved in all these applications are identical, and hence they were heard together and will be dealt with in one judgment.2. the zamindaris of these applicants were all situated in ganjam plains (now partly in orissa and partly in andhra state) and had been permanently settled with them by the well-known madras regulation no. xxv of 1802. these zamindaris have been acquired by the respective governments under the provisions of the estate abolition act. adjacent west of ganjam plaina lie hilly tracts (inhabited mainly by aboriginals) known as agency tracts, portions of which were granted to these zamindars by various sanads of the governor-in-council of fort st. george madras, sometime in 1874 and 1875. these tracts were known as 'maliahs' and the applicants were styled 'muthadars' of these maliahs. these tracts were always considered as separate from the permanently-settled areas of the zamindars and held on some sort of service tenure. government seem to have been in some doubt as to whether these zamindars had any proprietary interests in these maliahs. the collector of ganjam appears to have thought sometime in february 1954 that the zamindar of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1956 (HC)

Bhima Shaw and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-10-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori177; 1956CriLJ1208

narasimham, j.1. this is an sppeal from the judgment of the sessions judge of balasore convicting the appellants under section 400, penal code and sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment. fortyfive persons were tried in the court of the learned sessions judge for an offence under section 400, i.p.c., on the allegation that they belonged to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity during the period from 28-11-49 to 18-7-52.the learned sessions judge convicted twenty-three persons and acquitted the rest. the state government preferred an appeal (government appeal no. 8 of 1954) against the acquittal of abhi-manyu sahu, paramananda behera and kalicharao maharana, they also filed a revision petition (crl. rev. no. 103/54) for enhancement of the sentence passed on gour chandra dutta and amulya chandra das. of the convicted persons, accused haradhan mukherji, gour chandra dutta, kalu khan, sk. kasi alias kasiruddin and gourhari jena did not prefer any appeal against their conviction and sentence.the remaining convicted persons preferred both regular appeals and jail appeals. all these appeals and the criminal revision were heard together and will be dealt with in one judgment.2. the accused persons belong to various communities, diverse castes and two different states. some of them, namely, tarak chandra banerji, haradhan mukherji, gour chandra dutta and amulya chandra das belong to bengal. the rest of them belong to orissa; but most of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1956 (HC)

Bibuni Bewa Vs. Padmanav SwaIn and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jan-31-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori105

p.v.b. rao, j.1. defendant 1 bibuni bewa widow of one bhramar sahu files this appeal against the reversing judgment of the district judge of cuttack-dhenkanal remanding the plaintiff's suit for ordering: a sale according to sub-section (2) of section 3, partition act and for disposing it of according to law.2. one gangai swain had two sons, hari land damai. the plaintiff, padan, is one of the sons of damal and his other son bhagaban had three sons who are defendants 6 to 8. hari had three sons, sananda, jogi and binanda. defendant 5 is the daughter of sananda. maheswar, defendant 2, is the son of jogi. defendant 1 is the widowed daughter of binanda and defendants 3 and 4 are his sons.3. the plaintiff's case is that his father damai separated from his uncle many years ago-and divided their agricultural lands, but kept the homestead jointly in which he had a four anna-share and defendants 2 to 5 who are -the descendants of hari had an eight annas share. udia bewa wife of sananda, defendant 2 and binanda who is the father of defendants 3 and 4 sold, their eight annas share in the disputed property to defendant. 1 on 24-1-1952.the case of the plaintiff is that defendant 1 being a stranger to the family, her possession causes inconvenience to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff demanded a partition but it was refused and hence he filed a suit for partition with a prayer also for relief under section 4, partition act in respect of the eight annas share sold to defendant 1.4. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 1956 (HC)

Hari Panda and ors. Vs. State

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-29-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Ori20a; 22(1956)CLT247; 1956CriLJ1421

ordernarasimham, j.1. the 34 petitioners were tried by a. second class magistrate of chatrapur for offences under sections 143 and 379, i. p. c. on the allegation that on 28-11-1952, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at village aladigam, p. s. chatrapur with the common object of committing theft of paddy crops from survey nos. 864, 900 and 1134 in the possession of the complainant mangalu panda and that in furtherance of the said common object, they also committed theft of the saidpaddy crops. they were convicted and sentenced to various amounts of fine. their appeal to the appellate deputy magistrate, chatrapur was dismissed.2. the disputed lands are 2.51 acres in extents & it is admitted that they originally belonged to one shrimati pandiani who was the adoptive mother of petitioner hari panda. in execution of a decree against srimati pandiani in e. p. no. 757 of 1940, one haribondhu palo purchased the property through the civil court and the sale certificate (ext. 2) in his favour is dated 24-10-41. the delivery of possession was given to him on 22-1-42 (ext. 3/a) and it was confirmed in march 1942.the prosecution case is that since the date of the delivery of possession, the auction purchaser haribondhu palo remained in possession of the disputed property till he sold the same by ext. 1 to the complainant mangalu panda (p.w. 1) on 8-12-44 mangalu panda stated that he remained in possession since then through some bhag tenants who used to given registered .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //