Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)Documents citing
Vaikuntam Mamikyamma vs Puppala on 24 December, 1969
Smt. Jaijulla vs Ddc And Others on 25 February, 2026
AIR 1966 Supreme Court 735 (V 53 C 139); (Bhagwati Vs. Chandramaul)
iv. Vaikuntam Vs. Puppala AIR 1971 Orissa 49
v. Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt. Narayani Bai AIR 1983 SC 114
vi. Mundrilal Vs. Sushila Rani 2007 (8) SCC 609
vii.
Biswanath Nayak And Ors. vs Parbati Bewa And Ors. on 14 August, 2000
49 (Vaikuntam Mamikyamma v. Puppala) are quite relevant.
Suresh Barik vs Purna Chandra Rout And Ors. on 25 July, 2007
13. This decision was also followed by this Court in the case of Vaikuntam Mamikyamma v. Puppala AIR 1971 Orissa 49. Apart from that, P. Ws. 6 & 8 as well as the Petitioner, i.e., P.W. 7, in their evidence stated that they had attended the marriage of Puma Chandra Rout (O.P. No. 1) with Sarojini Rout. But the Tribunal did not accept the same as, according to Tribunal, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses does not repose confidence to come to a conclusion that Sorojini was the married wife of O.P. No. 1. In view of such evidence, the question of applicability of Section 50 of the Evidence Act does not arise at all. The Apex Court's observation, which we have quoted hereinbefore, also gives a detailed circumstance under which Section 50 shall be applicable. The foremost question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether in such a case this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can scan the evidence and re-evaluate the same and topsy-turvy the findings of the Election Tribunal.
1