Dismissed

Udayanath Pradhan v. Indu Pradhan

Orissa HC11 Sept 2017SA/273/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a decree for partition, the High Court of Orissa dismissed the defendants'’ appeal. The Court upheld the lower courts'’ finding that the plaintiff was the legally married wife of the deceased husband, citing witness testimony and voter list evidence, and applied judicial notice of marriage under Section 114.

What did the court decide?

The defendants'’ appeal was dismissed; the order below is affirmed; no costs awarded.

Udayanath Pradhan Vs Indu Pradhan — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

¶2

SA No.273 of 1991

¶3

From the judgment and decree dated 29.06.1991 and 04.07.1991 respectively passed by Shri B.N. Mishra, learned District Judge, Sambalpur in T.A. No. 12 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.02.1990 and 02.02.1990 respectively passed by Mr. A.C. Pattnaik, learned Sub-oridnate Judge, Deogarh in T.S. No. 22 of 1988.

¶4

¶5

Udayanath Pradhan and another	…. Appellants
	Versus
Indu Pradhan and other	…. Respondents
For Appellants …	Mr. Asutosh Mahanta, Adv.
For Respondents …	Mr. Manoj Das, Adv.

¶6

PRESENT:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH

¶8

Date of hearing & judgment: 11.09.2017

¶9

Dr. A.K.Rath, J This is a defendants’ appeal against confirming judgment in a suit for partition.

¶10

02. Respondent no.1 as plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 22 of 1988 in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Deogarh for partition impleading the appellants as defendant nos.1 & 2.

¶11

3. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties.

¶12

Padmabati Pradhan	Har Tulsi Udaynath Pradhan	ihar Pradhan Pradhan (wife) Abanikanta (dead) Sukanti Sahu Indu Pradhan (wife) (plaintiff)

¶13

¶14

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the legally married wife of Abanikanta Pradhan. Her husband died on 10.04.1988 leaving behind her as the sole heir and successor. Her husband was a member of undivided Mitakhyara Hindu family. After death of her husband, she being a class one heir is entitled to 6/18^th interest in the suit schedule property. When defendants deprived her from the share of the properties, she instituted the suit.

¶15

04. The defendants filed a written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that Abanikanta had not married the plaintiff. He died on 10.04.1988 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property.

¶16

05. On the, inter se, pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck four issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined seven witnesses and on her behalf two documents had been exhibited. Defendants had examined three witnesses. No document had been exhibited on their behalf. Placing reliance on the testimony of P.W.2, Barber, P.W.3, brother-in-law of defendant no.1, P.W.5, a co-villager, P.W.6, the brother of the plaintiff and P.W.7, plaintiff as well as voter list, Ext.2, learned trial court came to hold that the marriage between plaintiff and Abanikanta was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites. The evidence adduced by the Priests, P.Ws.1 and 4, was disbelieved, since there was minor discrepancy in their evidence. The suit was decreed. Against the said judgement and decree, defendants filed T.A. No. 12 of 1990 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur. Learned lower appellate court came to hold that there is minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. There was no reason to disbelieve the

¶17

¶18

same. It affirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

¶19

06. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶20

“(i) Whether the plaintiff claiming the status of legally married wife in a suit for partition, has discharged the onus in proving her status;

¶21

(ii) Whether the courts below were justified in law taking aid of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to record the finding of marriage in favour of the plaintiff ?”

¶22

07. Heard Mr. Asutosh Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Das on behalf of Mr. N.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

08. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff is not the legally married wife of Abanikanta. The marriage was not solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites. Voter list, Ext.2 cannot be the substitute of valid marriage. The findings of the courts below are perverse.

¶24

09. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of Abanikanta. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites. Seven witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. All the witnesses deposed that the plaintiff married Abanikanta. Further, the voter list has been marked as Ext.2 in which the plaintiff has been described as the wife of Abanikanta. The same is a public document. Her husband died on 10.04.1988 leaving behind her as his sole heir.

¶25

¶26

10. All the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff have unequivocally stated that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of Abanikanta. The plaintiff has been described as the wife of Abanikanta in the voter list, vide Ext.2. The same is a public document. On scanning of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of Abanikanta. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

¶27

11. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

…………………....…….. DR. A.K.RATH, J.

¶29

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

¶30

The 11^th September, 2017/ Puspanjali

Udayanath Pradhan v. Indu Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayanath Pradhan v. Indu Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandu Vs Laxman

Manik Vs State

Narendra Vs State

Jogeswar Vs Dagili

Somanath Mahadev Vs Girish

Iswar Vs Piter