PURNA CHANDRA MAHANTY Vs. SAMANTA RADHAPRASANA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of original suit No. 588/50 from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Balasore, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, to be tried and disposed of along with original suit No. 59/50 pending in the latter Court. For the sake of convenience, one may be called the Balasore suit and the other as the Cuttack suit. The Cuttack suit was filed on 18 -8 -1950, and the Balasore suit is said to have been filed somewhat later.

(2.) THE trial of both the suits has been stayed by orders of this Court dated 5 -11 -51 and 13 -2 -52. It is stated that the trial in both the suits has not yet commenced.

(3.) THE Balasore suit is a suit brought by the husband Sri Samant Radha Prasanna Das. He brings the suit against his wife Srimati Snehalata Dei and his daughter Srimati Shantilata Dei, who are defendants 6 and 7 therein and as against five others. Defendants 3 and 4 are the father and brother of the plaintiff's wife by name Sri Radha Mohan Pattnaik and Sri Bhuban Mohan Pattnaik, respectively and defendants 1, 2 and 5 are three other persons by name Sri Puma Chandra Mohanty, Sri Bhawani Prasad Mohanty and Sri Sarat Chandra Parija respectively. Defendant 2 is said to have been married to the 7th defendant the daughter of the plaintiff under alleged circumstances which according to the plaintiff Sri Samant Radha Prasanna Das makes the marriage invalid. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant, and the 5th defendant is the son -in -law of the 1st defendant. The allegations on which the plaintiff in the Balasore suit has brought the suit as against all these persons impleading them together, as defendants, are that defendants 1 and 5 were making overtures for the marriage of the second defendant with the seventh defendant and were putting pressure upon him to agree to the same, but that for various reasons he was unwilling to agree and was searching for another suitable bride elsewhere without giving them any final word. He alleges that the said two defendants influenced defendants 3 and 4 and through them persuaded defendant 6 to have the marriage of the 7th defendant performedwith D. 2, though he himself was unwilling and later on definitely expressed his unwillingness, It is said that thereupon defendants 1 to 5, baffled in their attempts to persuade him to agree to the. proposed match, conspired together, and thereby seduced and enticed away defendants 6 and 7 from the plaintiff's lawful custody, and wrongfully persuaded defendants 6 and 7 to leave his house on 12 -4 -50 when he was absent. It is further alleged that defendant 6 carried away with her at the time, movables, ornaments, and cash worth several thousand rupees. It is also alleged that subsequently all of them got defendants 2 and 7 to go through a form of marriage secretly and without the plaintiff's consent and without proper religious rites. On the above allegations, the plaintiff in the Balasore suit brought his suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for the consequential deprivation of his legal right to the consortium of his wife, D -6, and the deprivation of the services of his wife and daughter, defendants 6 and 7, as also for the loss suffered in his prestige and in the estimation of the general public.