Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Chowdamma (D) by LRs. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Venkatappa (D) by LRs. and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11330 of 2011
Decided On : 25-08-2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Sections 50 and 106 – Opinion on relationship – Legal position enunciates presumption in favour of a marriage where a man and woman have engaged in prolonged and continuous cohabitation – Prolonged cohabitation attracts strong presumption in favour of a valid wedlock – Such presumption, though rebuttable in nature, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence – Any circumstance that weakens this presumption ought not to be ignored by Court – Burden lies heavily on party seeking to question cohabitation and to deprive relationship of legal sanctity – Burden of proof lies upon party who asserts a fact. (Paras 38 and 41)
(B) Property Law – Partition – Suit decreed by High Court – Appeal by defendant – Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that deceased owner of property lived with their mother as husband and wife – As plaintiffs have successfully discharged their burden of proof regarding factum of marriage, onus now shifts to defendants to rebut the same – Defendants failed to discharge their onus to disprove factum of a valid marriage between plaintiffs’ mother and deceased – Their reliance on revenue records is of no avail, as such records carry only hold presumptive value and do not confer title – Failure of defendants to substantiate their claims through documentary evidence is eclipsed by a more consequential omission – In a case where principal controversy turns on matters lying within her exclusive personal knowledge, silence of defendant No. 1, her absence from witness box, is not a procedural lapse but a calculated withdrawal from scrutiny – Court of law cannot offer refuge to studied silence where duty to disclose exists – Plaintiffs have discharged evidentiary burden imposed upon them by law – In contrast, defendants, bereft of probative material or candour, resorted solely to denials – When measured against touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, scales unambiguously tilt in favour of plaintiffs – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60 and 61)
Facts of the case:
Instant Appeal calls in question impugned order dated 28.10.2010 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.935 of 2005, whereby High Court allowed said appeal filed by plaintiffs and set aside judgment of Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 24.03.2005 in O.S No.102/2001, consequently decreed suit for partition filed by plaintiffs.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed by High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No.935/2005 does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant interference by this Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to high court order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of property and family relations (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. contentions by parties regarding marriage (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. evidence evaluation on marital status (Para 10 , 19 , 20 , 25) |
| 5. presumption of marriage from cohabitation (Para 34 , 40 , 42) |
| 6. conclusion on appeal dismissal (Para 60 , 61) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal calls in question the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 935 of 2005, whereby the High Court allowed the said appeal filed by the plaintiffs and set aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Holalkere, dated 24.03.2005 in O.S No. 102/2001, consequently decreed the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs.
2. The defendants in O.S. No. 102/2001 are the appellants herein, and the plaintiffs are respondents. The parties shall be referred to as per their position before the Trial Court for convenience.
The genealogical chart germane to the present dispute is as under:
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that their grandfather, namely Thimmabovi Vellappa, had two sons: Dasabovi @ Dasappa and Venkatappa. Dasabovi had two wives. The first wife, Bheemakka @ Sathyakka, is the mother of the plaintiffs. The second wife, Chowdamma, is defendant No. 1 and their son is defendant No. 2. Dasabovi died about five years prior to the filing of the suit, leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The suit schedule lands bearing Survey Nos. 39/1B, 149, 41/lP, 37/1, 37/lA and 29/9, and the house bearing No. 38, situated in Devigere and Kallahally village, Hosadurga Taluk.
4. About five years prior to the filing of the suit, during the lifetime of Dasabovi’s father, the properties were divided between the father of the plaintiffs and his brother, Venkatappa. As a consequence, the suit schedule lands and the house property fell into the share of Dasabovi. After the partition, the plaintiffs became the manager of the joint family properties, and both the plaintiffs and the defendants were cultivating the suit schedule properties.
5. During the lifetime of Dasabovi, another property bearing No. 37/1 of Kallahally Village, Hosadurga, was purchased out of joint family funds and in the name of the joint family. However, the said property was registered in the name of defendant No. 1 (Chowdamma).
6. After the birth of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 to the first wife of Dasabovi, he fell in love with defendant No. 1 (Chowdamma) and entered into a relationship with her. After some time, she was brought into his house and began living with him as his wife. In view of the second wife entering the house, the first wife and her children were driven out. Consequently, Bheemakka, the first wife, along with the plaintiffs, went to her paternal home at Antharagange Village.
7. Even though the first wife and her children left the house of Dasabovi, he continued to visit them on several occasions. After the death of Dasabovi, the plaintiffs also visited their father’s residence at Galirangaiahnahatti Village, as they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
8. It is alleged that defendant No. 1, who was a Panchayat member, exerted her influence, and got the names of herself and her children entered in the revenue records. Based on the change in the revenue entries, the defendants declined to acknowledge the plaintiffs as being in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs were compelled to demand their share in the family properties. Having been denied the same, the plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 102/2001 seeking partition of the suit schedule property to the extent of half share, along with other consequential reliefs.
9. The defendants contended that the defendant No. 1 is the only wife of the deceased Dasabovi, and hence, the plaintiffs have no right, title, or inte
(1) Prolonged cohabitation attracts strong presumption in favour of a valid wedlock.(2) Revenue records carry only hold presumptive value and do not confer title.
The court affirmed that documentary evidence is paramount in establishing familial relationships over contradictory oral testimony in inheritance disputes.
A presumption of marriage exists based on cohabitation unless disproven, placing the burden of proof on the party denying the marriage status.
The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act affirms a child's right to inherit, unless proven otherwise, promoting equality among heirs.
In partition suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their relationship to the deceased and the nature of the properties as joint family assets.
The evidence concerning family relationships must comply with Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing special knowledge and admissibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of marriage and recognition of relationships based on long cohabitation, and the burden of proof on the party seeking to deny the v....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
