{"id":208116,"date":"1973-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973"},"modified":"2016-11-04T02:16:49","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T20:46:49","slug":"balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","title":{"rendered":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 Ori 112<\/div>\n
Author: S Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: S Ray<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  S.K. Ray, J.   <\/p>\n
\n\n \n\n 1.   This   second   appeal\nIs by the plaintiffs from the confirming\ndecision dated 10-4-1969 of Sri L. Mallik,\nAdditional    District    Judge.     Dhenkanal\npassed in T. A. No. 18\/128 of 1967\/1965. \n \n\n 2.       The plaintiffs sued for declaration of their title to a passage forming \n\n<\/pre>\n
part of plot No. 976 (Schedule A), for recovery of possession of the same and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs user of the said passage. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of damages on account of damage caused to the ridge on plot No. 2789 (Schedule C) and for declaration of title to 0.01 decimal of land on plot No. 996 (Schedule B).\n<\/p>\n
 3.      The   plaintiffs   and   defendant are members of one family as would appear from  the  following  genealogy:–\n<\/p>\n
                             RATNAKAR
\n                                |\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            ——————————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            |                   |                    |\n         Harihara           Dharani                 Suna\n            |            (Died in 1943)              |\n    -----------------           |                Lokanath\n    |               |      Joginath=Hara Dibya    (Deft.)\n Balaram         Biswanath   (remarried in 1950)\n  (Plff.1)       (Plff.2)\n\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 4. The plaintiffs case may be shortly stated. The three sons of Ratnakar separated from each other in all respects during the lifetime of their father and got their names separately recorded in revisional settlement of 1923-24 in respect of properties which fell to their shares in that partition and some properties were left joint for the maintenance of their mother. The said undivided properties were recorded jointly in their names. Subsequently in 1927, when the defendant’s father was dead, this ioint property underwent a second partition. The allotments made in this partition was recorded in a document which was proved as Ext 1. Dharani, shortly before his death, on 1-7-1943, executed a document, nomenclatured as Chuktipatra. (Ex. B) distributing his separate properties which he had acquired in the aforesaid partitions amongst his three nephews, namely, plaintiffs 1, 2 and defendant equally. Thereafter the defendant and the plaintiffs filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge, Dhenkanal on 1-3-1946 praying for sanction or ratification of the aforesaid settlement under Ex. 1. This proceeding terminated in a compromise to which Kara Dibya, a minor then, was a party as per compromise petition (Ex. 3). Thereafter the properties of pharani, were possessed by his nephews in three equal shares since 1946 as per Ex. 1. In 1963, the defendant blocked the common passage as set out in Schedule A, dispossessed the plaintiffs from 0.01 decimal of land as described in Schedule ‘B’ and damaged the western ridge of the land allotted to the plaintiffs out of plot No. 2789 as per Schedule ‘C’. Those overt acts of the defendant gave rise to the cause of action for the present suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 5. The defendant denied the two partitions pleaded by the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
impeached the genuineness of Exts. 1 and B. His case is that the parties are still in joint and undivided status.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The trial Court while dismissing the suit, rendered the following findings;\n<\/p>\n
 (a) The father of defendant died in 1928;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) Ex. 1 being an unregistered deed of partition is inadmissible in evidence;\n<\/p>\n
 (c) There was severance of joint status, but partition by metes and bounds had not taken place. The different members of the family possessed different portions of the land by amicable arrangement;\n<\/p>\n
 (d) Ex. B was also held to be inadmissible on account of non-registration and that the properties dealt with under Ex. B being joint family properties could not be bequeathed or settled by Dharani, as if these were his separate properties.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The appellate Court while confirming the decision of the trial Court came to the following conclusions;\n<\/p>\n
 (i) Ex. B is inadmissible in evidence whether it be treated as deed of gift or as a Will As a deed of gift it is not admissible for want of registration and as a Will it is also inadmissible for want of probate;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) Defendant’s father died some time in 1925-26;\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) Ex. 1 is inadmissible, being an unregistered deed of partition;\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) The prior partitions pleaded by the plaintiffs are not true;\n<\/p>\n
 (v) Kara Dibya being not a signatory to the compromise petition (Ex. 31 the same is not binding upon her.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The main contention on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court are vitiated on account of discarding Exts. 1 and B from consideration as inadmissible pieces of evidence<\/p>\n
and also owing to non-consideration of two vital pieces of documentary evidence. Exts. 2 and 3. It is argued that if those pieces of documentary evidence had been given due weight along with other evidence and circumstances on record, the lower appellate Court would have reached different conclusions regarding the plaintiff’s case of prior partition. It is true that the lower appellate Court has said; “As regards the alleged
\nprevious   partition during the lifetime of Ratnakar, there is no documentary
\n evidence”,   and   this  shows   that  he   has
\n rejected Exts. 1 and B from out of conisideration altogether. His judgment does pot indicate that he has given any judicial consideration to Exs. 2 and 3 except saying that Ex. 3 is not binding upon
\n Hara   Dibya.     Even   so,   it   is      further
\nargued,  the final  decision  of the District
\nJudge  of Dhenkanal which was patently
\n based on Ex. 3 would be voidable only and Hara Dibya, who was minor at the time, was entitled to avoid the same after attaining maiority. The lower appellate Court should have further considered the effect of Hara Dibya having omitted to avoid the same before she remarried in 1950 thereby bringing about her civil death.\n<\/p>\n
 9. I will now proceed to consider the question of admissibility of Ex. 1. The legal position is not controverted, that if “Ex. 1, on construction, is found to be a partition deed in pursuance of which immovable properties have been partitioned it would become inadmissible in evidence because it being a document compulsorily registrable  under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, has not been registered. But if this document is found to be merely a record of partition which has preceded coming into being of this document, it would be admissible.\n<\/p>\n
 The recitals of this document, when carefully perused, indicate that this document is a record of the allotments made in a partition by metes and bounds which preceded it. There are expressions in it like — “Bantankari diagala” “Bantan hela” and some properties were life joint. “Abasista Nile banti nebe” “Tutituti kiari samana ansare bantan hela” “Upare Upare two decimals Hari Tripathyku diagala” “Eka gadi choudare hida sakase iami diagala”. These and similar other expressions found in this document unequivocally indicate that some properties were divided by metes and bounds, some were kept joint and partition by metes and bounds of some properties postponed to a future date. There is no doubt, in my mind, that this document does not contemporaneously sprit unity of title into severally and does not extinguish or create title in specific items of joint family properties. It is<\/p>\n
a mere record of anterior acts creating exclusive title in favour of some members of joint family by extinguishing title of others in the same. It is an allotment list recording the allotment of properties as a result of partition by metes and bounds. This document should not have been rejected as inadmissible.\n<\/p>\n
 10. I will now consider the document Ex. B. This document, it must be remembered, was produced from the custody of the defendant and the lower appellate court has missed this aspect in considering the genuineness of the document. I think it will not be open to the defendant to challenge the genuineness of this document after having proved it in the case merely because the effect of this document appears ultimately to be antagonistic to his case.\n<\/p>\n
 I will now extract a portion from the document to determine its nature in the first instance:\n<\/p>\n
  “Moara Antesti Kriye moara thiba ethi samil panchayat bhadralokmananka swakharita talika mutabak sampati bidhimat karibe. Antesti kriya sesapar jaha baliba bidhaba putrabadhu tara chalachal sakase iaha abasyaka tana nela para jaha rahiba taha uperakto tiniputura eaman ansare badhra lok mananka mukabilare bantan kari nebe. Anu moura Prana Prayana samayare panchayat bhadra lok mananka mukabilare a chuktipatra lekhi deluki darkar belo karmare asiba.”\n<\/p>\n
 Though the recital in the earlier portion of this document indicates a transaction by way of gift nevertheless, the concluding portion quoted above indicates very clearly that the intention of the executant was that the title to the property was not to pass in praesenti but would take effect in future on the death of executant. I am in agreement with view of the lower appellate Court that this document is in nature of a Will and not a deed of gift. This document (Ex. B) has not been probated under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, and accordingly it has been held that no right can be based on that document in other words, the document is inadmissible in evidence. This view would be correct provided Section 213 of Indian Succession Act applies.\n<\/p>\n
 Mrs. Padhi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has advanced two lines of argument in support of the admissibility of the document. The first is that this Section 213 of Indian Succession Act, does not apply and reliance has been placed to Sub-section (2) of Section 213 and Section 57(a) of the Indian Succession Act. These provisions are quoted herein below.\n<\/p>\n
 “Section 213(2) — This section shall not apply in the case of wills made by Muhammadans and shall only apply-\n<\/p>\n
  (1) in the case of wills made by any Hindu, Budhist. Sikh or Jaina where such wills are of classes specified in Clauses (a) and (b) or Section 57.”\n<\/p>\n
 “57 (a) to all wills and codicils made
\nby any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina,
\non or after the first day of September,
\n1870, within the territories which at
\nthe said date were subiect to the Lieute
\nnant Governor of Bengal or within the
\nlocal limits of the ordinary original
\ncivil jurisdiction of the High Courts of
\nJudicature at Madras and Bombay; and\n<\/p>\n
(b) to all such wills and codicils made
\noutside those territories and limits so
\nfar as relates to immovable property
\nsituate within these territories or limits.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no dispute in this case that
\nthis will dated 1-7-1943 was executed
\nInside the ex-state of Dhenkanal and
\nrelated to immovable properties situate
\nwithin its territory. Unless it is shown
\nthat the territory of the ex-state of
\nDhenkanal was subject to the Lieutenant
\nGovernor of Bengal or within the local
\nlimits of the ordinary original civil
\njurisdiction of the High Courts of Judi
\ncature at Madras and Bombay on the
\nlet day of September, 1870, the prohibi
\ntion contained in Section 213 will not
\napply and the Will (Ex. B) would not
\nbe inadmissible for want of probate. It
\nis argued on behalf of the appellants
\nthat “Subiect to the lieutenant Governor” in Section 57(a) would prima facie
\nmean subject to the governance of the
\nLieutenant Governor of Bengal. Prior
\nto the Indian Independence Act of 1947,
\nDhenkanal was a feudatory State and, as
\nsuch was not an integral part of the
\nBritish India but was under the paramountcy of the British Crown. It was
\ntreated as a Sovereign State and the Ruler
\nin Durbar made laws for its territory
\nand the executive power vested in the
\nRuler. Thus Dhenkanal feudatory State
\ncannot be said to be subject to the
\nLieutenant Governor of Bengal on 1-9-\n<\/p>\n
1870. This argument has considerable
\nforce.\n<\/p>\n
 To meet this Mr. Mohanti, the learned counsel for the respondent read a portion from the Imperial Gazetteer of India to show that Ex-State of Dhenkanal was subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal on the first day of September, 1870. I am not satisfied that there is anything in the gazetteer which conclusively establishes that fact. Accordingly Ex. B does not come within the clauses of wills enumerated in Section 57 (a) or (b) of the Indian Succession Act. As at present advised I must accept the contention of Mrs. Padhi on this point that absence of probate will not debar the legatees or their successors-in-interest from claiming rights on the basis of the will and that Ex. B will be an admissible piece of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
 The second line of argument is based on the Rules relating to Succession, Transfer, Leases, Relinquishment of Lands and Mutation of Names which were in operation in Dhenkanal at the time of execution of Ex. B i.e. 1-7-1943. It is well known that Dhenkanal State was integrated on 15-12-1947 and before that date it had its own laws and Rules and the Rules referred to above are accepted as prevailing in the ex-State of Dhenkanal before its merger. The relevant rules I are extracted herein below:\n<\/p>\n
  “The  provision of Indian Succession Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to all testamentary bequests in the State subject to the following conditions:–\n<\/p>\n
 I. All such bequests shall be made with previous permission of the State.\n<\/p>\n
 II. When no previous permission has been obtained such bequests may be recognised by the State on proof of genuineness and payment of salami of Rs. 20\/- per acre of Saradh land and Rs. 8\/- per acre of Toila land.\n<\/p>\n
 III. Such permission or recognition shall be considered equivalent to probate or letter of Administration and the Tahasildar shall grant mutation on the strength thereof, when legatee comes into possession on the receipt of the Salami (if any) prescribed above. Any claim or contest, after a bequest has been permitted or recognised, shall not be taken cognizance of by any Revenue Court. The party aggrieved if so advised may bring a regular suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
 IV. While (wills?) are not compulsorily registrable.”\n<\/p>\n
 Jt has been proved in the case that subsequent to the execution of the document Ex. B Misc. Case No. 21 of 1946-47 was initiated for getting sanction of the State in regard to this document Ex. B. This proceeding was contested by Hara Dibya and was disposed of in terms of compromise. The petition of compromise was signed by parties and also by the advocate for Hara Dibya who was a minor at the time. This compromise was accepted by the District Judge on 26-4-1946. The order passed was “filed today.” The order “filed today” should be construed as an order disposing of the Misc. Case 21\/46-47 in terms of compromise, because no other order of the District Judge has been produced to show that it was disposed of in any other manner or that recognition was refused. Until contrary is shown it would be more reasonable to assume that bequest in Ex. B was recognised by the State and Ex. B may be treated as having been probated. For the aforesaid reasons, Ex. B should not have been rejected as inadmissible.\n<\/p>\n
 Compromise petition (Ex. 3) has been signed by the Advocate for Hara Dibya and without anything more, it would be<\/p>\n
inappropriate to hold that Hara Dibya was not aware of the compromise or that she did not agree to it. At any rate the order of District Judge would be a voidable one at the instance of Kara Dibya who was a minor then. (See the principle in the case of Kaushalva Devi v. Baijnath Saval, AIR 1961 SC 790) and the said order not haying been set aside before she died a civil death in 1950 must be held to be eood and binding on all parties to the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 21\/46-47.\n<\/p>\n
 11. It is now clear that the lower appellate Court must reappraise evidence by taking into consideration Exts. 1. B, 2 and 3 and the case must, therefore, be remanded back to him for rehearing.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. Mohanti has also raised many other questions of legal complexion, but I am not going to refer to them because it will be open to him to raise the same before the lower appellate Court when be rehears the appeal afresh.\n<\/p>\n
 12. In the result, therefore. I would set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the same back to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal according to law, keeping in view the observations made above and taking into consideration all the relevant materials on records. Costs will abide the result.\n<\/p>\n
 Appeal allowed  and remanded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 Ori 112 Author: S Ray Bench: S Ray JUDGMENT S.K. Ray, J. 1. This second appeal Is by the plaintiffs from the confirming decision dated 10-4-1969 of Sri L. Mallik, Additional District Judge. Dhenkanal passed in T. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\",\"name\":\"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973","datePublished":"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973"},"wordCount":2642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973","name":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T20:46:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balaram-tripathy-and-anr-vs-lokanath-tripathy-on-6-february-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balaram Tripathy And Anr. vs Lokanath Tripathy on 6 February, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}