Dismissed

Kartikeswara Dwibedy v. Shantilata Pati

Orissa HC10 Mar 2022RSA/258/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed against a preliminary decree in a succession matter was dismissed. The High Court held that no substantial questions of law surfaced since the Supreme Court and previous Orissa HC decisions clarified the applicability of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 provisions in favor of the respondent, making admission unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal stands dismissed without cost.

Kartikeswara Dwibedy Vs Shantilata Pati — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RSA NO.258 OF 2009

¶3

Sri Kartikeswara Dwibedy

¶4

…. Appellant Ms.S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Smt. Shantilata Pati & Another

¶7

…. Respondents Mr.B.H. Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

ORDER

Order No.

10.03.2022

This matter is taken up by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical) mode.

¶15

This Appeal being of the year 2009 is lying on Board without being admitted.

¶16

3 . Ms.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.D.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondents are presents.

¶17

It is submitted at the Bar that the preliminary decree, which has been called in question the present Appeal, has been made final and that being sealed and signed, the parties have altered their position accordingly.

¶18

Keeping in view the above, on going through the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that the main substantial questions of law have been projected at 2(iv) and (v) of the Memorandum of Appeal. The first one is as to the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 6 as have been introduced by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 to the advantage of Respondent No.1. This has already been answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma –V-

Page 1 of 2

// 2 //

Basu

Rakesh Sharma; (2020) 9 SCC 1 and the other substantial question of law 2(v) as to the effect of the omission of the provision of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The answer comes in the decision of mine in the case of Maheswar Amat –V- Ujala Amat, ARI 2016 Orissa 148. As per the said decision, the answers to the said substantial questions of law would stand in favour of Respondent No.1 which would be running for confirmation of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as have been passed.

¶23

For the aforesaid, this court is of the view that no substantial questions of law surface meriting admission of this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed without cost.

¶24

(D. Dash),
Judge.

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Kartikeswara Dwibedy v. Shantilata Pati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartikeswara Dwibedy v. Shantilata Pati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Bhima Khara Vs State of Odisha

Hari Vs Dosa

Rama Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Raju Vs Bisnu

Khageswar Dwibedy Vs Shantilata Pati