Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-11-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori167; 44(1977)CLT186
p.k. mohanty, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing decree arising out of a suit for declaration of title to, confirmation or in the alternative recovery of possession of the suit land and for issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.2. the plaintiff's case runs thus: one hari bhoi was the recorded raiyat in respect of the suit land. the land was lying fallow and the plaintiff, after constructing a small thatched hut, began to live there. subsequently, the said hari bhoi sold the land to the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 95/- under an unregistered sale deed dated 18-3-65 and gave formal delivery of possession thereof to him. the plaintiff, after his purchase, improved the suit land, constructed a two-roomed house thereon and possessed the same on payment of rent to the landlord. on 8-2-63 the defendants 1 and 2 obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the said hari bhoi and got their names mutated in respect thereof by practising fraud on the revenue authorities.3. defendants 1 and 2 denied the plaint allegations and contended that hari bhoi, the recorded tenant, while in actual possession of the suit land, sold the same in their favour under the registered sale deed dated 9-2-63 on receipt of cash consideration and put them in possession. they further contended that before their purchase, hari bhoi was residing in a two-roomed house standing on the suit land which had become dilapidated for want of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-06-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ori125; 44(1977)CLT597
s. acharya, j. 1. the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below has preferred this appeal. 2. the plaintiff's case in short is that he purchased the suit land by oral sale en 25-10-54 from laxmi bewa, the original, owner thereof, for rs. 95/- and took delivery of possession of the same. thereafter he continued in peaceful possession of the property and got the same mutated in his name. after the death of laxmi bewa on 2-2-55 the plaintiff obtained permission from the municipality for constructing a house on the suit land. the plaintiff remained absent from baripada for a long time and in 1962 he came to learn that defendant no. 1 was trying to construct a house forcibly on the suit site. so the plaintiff initiated a proceeding under section 145 cr. p. c. which ultimately was decided in favour of defendant no. 1. hence this suit. 3. defendant no. 1's case is that he orally purchased the suit land from lax-mi dei for rs. 60/- on 30-5-41 and got delivery of possession of the same. laxmi died in the year 1943. defendant no. 1 thereafter built a house on that land in november, 1950 after obtaining the necessary permission from the municipality. the plaintiff's case of purchase of the suit land by him has been denied by this defendant and he asserts that the plaintiff by fraudulent means got the suit property mutated in his name without the knowledge of this defendant.defendant no. 2 on his own application was impleaded as a party in the suit. his case was that he being the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ori182; 45(1978)CLT409
r.n. misra, j.1. defendants have carried this appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the learned additional subordinate judge of puri in a suit for partition.2. parties are related in the manner indicated below:-- x _______________________________|______________________________ | | | bhagaban michhu hadibandhu | _______________|__________ | padmanav | | balf widow bholi basu widow landi (d.1) | suna (p.1) (died) nidhi (d.2) | during | banadhihari suit) kasinath widow widow (d.2 ka) hema dukhi (p.2) (d.1) | brundaban (d.1 ka)plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the properties in the hotchpot alleging that there had been no partition among the three branches of which the common ancestors were bhagaban, michhu and hadibandhu. with the aid and assistance of joint family nucleus several acquisitions were made and such properties have also been included in the hotchpot for partition on the footing that they were impressed with joint family character. the kha schedule property represents the moveables while the ga schedule relates to money-lending business of the family. plaintiffs, averred that they were beingdeprived of the benefits of the joint family properties and when they demanded partition, the same was not accepted too. thus the suit was filed in forma pauperis asking for one-third share.3. bali and bholi filed a written statement pleading previous partition among the three branches prior to 1927 when the current settlement operations began. the said .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori174; 44(1977)CLT199
s.k. ray, j.1. this is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the reversing decision of the district judge, balangir-kalahandi dated 20-11-73 passed in title appeal no 54 of 1971.plaintiffs filed the suit for division of the suit lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share each to plaintiff no. 1, plaintiff no. 3, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2.2. plaintiffs and defendants are members of one family as will appear from the following genealogy: baiju munda (dead) ______________________________|___________________________________ | | | chamru tiknu (dead) lachhman (dead) (died before marriage) =kandri =kunda munda (dead) _________________________|_______________________ | | | | | | lepa (dead) ghungi kali ladi @ kamala bimla | (dead) sari (p-3) (p.1) gandaram | | | (d-1) | kandarpa (p-4) magsira (p.2) | _______________|________________ | | arjun (dead) mahanga | (died without issue) tapi (d-2)the suit land is 7.22 acres appertaining to holding no. 8 in mouza mahammadpur and admittedly belonged to tiknu and on his death it constituted ancestral property in the hands of his successors in interest. there is no dispute now that kandri, widow of tiknu, died some time before 1936 when last record-of-rights in respect of the suit land was prepared. in this record-of-rights, ghungi's name was solely recorded in respect of the suit land. while claiming partition, the plaintiffs explained this recording on the ground that as bethi system was in vogue in the area, they .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-14-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori142; 43(1977)CLT524
s. acharya, j.1. the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in title appeal no. 28/72------- by the addl. district judge,58/69 berhampur confirming the decision of the additional subordinate judge, berhampur in title suit no. 18 of 1968.2. to appreciate the facts of this case, the admitted genealogy showing the relationship of the parties is given below:-- mukunda pani ______________________|_________________________ | | | arjun kasi chandrasekhar (dead) (dead) (dead) | | | | madan mohan | | (d.4) | | adopted son | _________|____________ ____________________|____________ | | | | | | | benu ballabha madan mohan hara nisamani srimati dileswar (dead) (d.3) (d.4) (p.1) (p.2) (p.3) (dead) =brundabati (adopted to =jasodhara (d.2) kasi) (d.1)3. the plaintiffs, as shown in the genealogical tree, are the sisters of dileswar and defendants 2 to 4 are the distant cousins of dileswar.4. the plaintiffs in the plaint alleged that jasodhara (defendant no. 1), respondent no. 1 in this appeal, was not the legally married wife of dileswar. but on the finding of the trial court that jasodhara (d, 1) was the legally married wife of dileswar, the plaintiffs in the lower appellate court and also in this court do not challenge that fact. in view of the above position, it is not necessary to state the averments made in the plaint on that aspect of the matter.5. the relevant averments made by the plaintiffs which are necessary for the determination of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-02-1977
Reported in : 41STC17(Orissa)
s.k. ray j.1. the petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods and he was registered under the orissa sales tax act. he was assessed for the year 1971-72 under section 12(4) of the orissa sales tax act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by order dated 10th march, 1973 (annexure 1). the returned gross turnover was accepted, deduction claimed under section 5(2)(a)(a)(ii) to the extent of rs. 1,95,496.17 was allowed except for a sum of rs. 564.67 and this resulted in extra demand of tax of rs. 41.69.the petitioner purchased some goods from m/s. general electrical com-pany of india by furnishing declaration under section 5(2)(a)(a)(ii) of the act and transferred a portion of it to his calcutta head office valued at rs. 1,30,095.49, contravening the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(a)(ii) of the act. the sales tax officer, opposite party no. 2, while assessing under section 12(4) of the act excluded this amount from the returned gross turnover presumably being ignorant of such contravention of the said proviso.2. the assistant commissioner of sales tax, opposite party no. 1, who had been delegated suo motu power of revision by the commissioner as per notification no. i. s. t. 75/63-14171 dated 3rd august, 1963, assessed the escaped turnover of rs. 1,30,095.49 by his impugned order, annexure 2, dated 3rd march, 1976, in exercise of his revisional power under rule 80 of the orissa sales tax rules, 1947. this petition is to quash annexure 2.3. it is not disputed either by the petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-28-1977
Reported in : 43STC64(Orissa)
r.n. misra, j.1. the petitioner is a firm carrying on business at kantabanji in the district of bolangir and has been registered as a dealer under the orissa sales tax act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), with registration number b.p. 11-93. the sales tax officer reassessed the dealer for the year 1969-70 under the provisions of section 12(8) of the act and completed the assessment under section 12(4) of the act for the year 1970-71. both the order of reassessment as also the order of assessment were made on 27th may, 1972, and by these, additional tax was demanded for both the years. the assessee preferred appeals before the assistant commissioner of sales tax at bolangir and its appeals were registered as appeals nos. 17 and 18 of 1972-73. both these appeals were dimissed summarily on account of non-removal of defects which had been pointed out by the appellate authority and no further steps were taken against the said appellate decisions. the assistant commissioner of sales tax, however, issued notices under section 23(4) of the act for revising the orders of assessment and, while that matter was pending, by notice dated 21st march, 1975, the commissioner of sales tax purported to revise the very same assessments. before the commissioner, the matters were posted to 21st april, 1975, and were adjourned to 29th april, 1975, and readjourned to 30th april, 1975. on that date, the assessee wanted to know the reasons for the initiation of the suo motu proceeding for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-26-1977
Reported in : 44(1977)CLT311; 1978CriLJ287
orderp.k. mohanti, j.1. this criminal revision arises in the following circumstances:the petitioner filed a complaint petition against the opposite parties on the following allegations; on 31-3-76 he went to the patrapur grama panchayat office to file quotation for lease of the ferry ghat at patrapur and the opposite parties also went there for the same purpose. the petitioner took with him a cash of rs. 2,200/- to deposit the lease money in case his quotation was accepted. the opposite parties after coming to know that the petitioner was ready with cash to deposit the lease money entered into a conspiracy to commit theft of the cash. opposite party no. 1 directed the other opposite parties to take away the cash from the petitioner by applying force. then opposite parties 2 to 6 held the petitioner down and opposite party no. 1 took away the cash from the petitioner.2 the opposite parties were summoned to stand their trial under section 380/352/149 ipc. after appearance of the opposite parties, since it was a complaint case, the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was recorded. the petitioner and two other witnesses were examined. at the time of consideration of the charge it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a case under section 395 ipc was made out against the opposite parties and hence the case should be committed to the court of session for trial. the learned magistrate negatived this contention and framed charges under sections 143 and 380/149 ipc against .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-15-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori170; 44(1977)CLT273
1. both the appeals arise out of the same judgment. plaintiffs are appellants in both the appeals which were heard analogous.parties to the suit belong to the same family, krushna chandra samantaray had three sons -- laxman (who is dead), biswanath (plaintiff no. 1) and lokanath (defendant), plaintiffs nos. 2 and 3 are sons of laxman.2. the case of the plaintiffs is that while their family was joint. laxman was the sarbarakar and defendant was serving as a doctor at narsinghpur. plaintiff no. 1 was looking after the properties. the properties were acquired out of the joint efforts of the brothers and, after amicable partition, the brothers were possessing separate properties. on 19-3-1935, the defendant made an application on behalf of all the three brothers to the raja saheb of narasinghpur for settlement of the lands described in schedule b of the plaint and the raja saheb settled the lands in fovour of the three brothers on 13-5-1935. these lands, like all other lands acquired by the brothers either individually or collectively, were being always treated and enjoyed as part of the joint family property and were blended with the joint family property. in the year 1946 or 1947, there was an amicable partition between the three brothers, in which the lands described in schedule b were also divided and out of those plaintiff no. 1 got the lands described in schedule b/1, father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 got schedule b/2 lands and defendant got schedule b/3 lands. when defendant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-01-1977
Reported in : 109ITR497(Orissa)
r.n. misra, j.1. on an application of the assessee under section 256(1) of the income-tax act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), the income-tax appellate tribunal, cuttack bench, has stated this case and has referred the following two questions for opinion of this court :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 2,77,692 awarded to the assessee as interest was rightly held to be a revenue receipt ? 2. if the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, onthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid sum ofrs. 2,77,692 was rightly separated from the other amounts under theawards and taxed in full ?' 2. the relevant assessment year is 1972-73, corresponding to the financial year ending with march 31, 1972. the assessee is a firm engaged, inter alia, in execution of government contracts. it disclosed in its return for the year a gross receipt of rs. 22,72,997 and following a settlement between it and the revenue reached for earlier years in the matter of computation of income of receipts from contract business adopted ten per cent, thereof as income. while examining the accounts, the income-tax officer found that the assessee had got some of its claims in relation to contract works executed in earlier years referred to arbitration and the awards passed in its favour contained a sum of rs. 4,30,549 representing interest. he separated this item from other sums and on the footing that it represented .....Tag this Judgment!