Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 60
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. GANGELE
KARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SITARAM - Respondents
Second Appeal 273 Of 1989
Decided On : 01/11/2005
A.K.SETHI, G.M.CHAPHEKAR
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation and the burden of proof in establishing the validity of the marriage, as well as the court's authority to draw legal inference and presumption from proved facts.
Headnote:
Marriage - Hindu Law - Evidence Act - [Sardarbai] - [Property Dispute] - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Sections 107, 108] - The court discussed the validity of the marriage between Sardarbai and Sitaram, the legal inference and presumptions arising from proved facts, and the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Key legal provisions such as Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act were interpreted to establish the presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation. The court's decision was influenced by the principles of Hindu Law and the burden of proof in establishing the validity of the marriage.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming ownership of ancestral property as coparceners of an undivided Hindu family. The trial court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiffs and defendants were not valid sons of Sitaram due to the invalid marriage of Sardarbai with defendant No. 1. The appellate court upheld the decision. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the courts erred in appreciating the evidence and ignoring the prior marriage laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence established a presumption of valid marriage between Sardarbai and Sitaram based on long cohabitation, and the burden of proof to rebut the presumption was not met by the defendants. The courts' failure to draw legal inference and presumption from proved facts was highlighted, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: Validity of marriage, Ownership of ancestral property, Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act, Burden of proof
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation, the burden of proof in establishing the validity of the marriage, and the failure of the defendants to rebut the presumption. The courts' errors in appreciating the evidence and applying the prior marriage laws influenced the final decision.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellants was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by both courts below were set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in their favor, and each party was directed to bear their own costs of litigation throughout.
( 2 ) THE appeal was admitted vide order dated 9-3-1990 on following substantial questions of law :-1 ). "that, the learned Judge has erred in not approaching the question about the fact of marriage between Sitaram and Sardarbai from the correct standpoint, erred in not drawing legal inference; and presumptions, arising from proved facts. "2 ). "it be held that Sitaram and Sardarbai was validly married what is the effect on paternity of the plaintiff-appellant?"3 ). "whether the procedure of examining defendant as Court witness adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and causes prejudice to the appellant?"
( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS filed civil suit mentioning that plaintiffs and defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 are real brothers and defendant No. 1 is their father and defendant No. 6 is the mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 7 is the mother of plaintiffs and defendants No. 3, 4 and 5. It is submitted by the plaintiff that his land area 4. 179 hectare situated at village-Papli is the joint family property. Although, it is in the name of defendant No. 1 who is the father. Similarly the respondent No. 2 had half share in an another land of area 5. 914 hectare situated in same village mentioned in Para 3 of the plaint and also other lands mentioned in para 4 area 6. 312 hectare and Para 5 area 3. 10 hectare and 1. 829 hectare. In all these lands the defendant No. 1 had half share of the property. These are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs and defendants are a member of undivided Hindu family property and hence, they are the owners as coparcener of the property.
( 4 ) BECAUSE the defendant No. 1 was old person and there are quarrel between his both the wives. Hence, the defendant No. 2 filed a suit against defendants No. 1, 8 and 9 on 23-12-1977 and after a compromise he obtained a decree in that suit. The name of defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 and the plaintiff was not mentioned and decree was obtained on 9-8-1978 in case No. 2-A/1978. It has further been pleaded that the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 of the family were in possession of the 1/4 th part of the property mentioned in the Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint for last 12 years. It has submitted that the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 and other defendants are brothers and are entitled to same share in the property. They are entitled for a partition and possession. The decree passed in civil suit No. 2-A/1978 is not binding on the appellants. They prayed a partition in the suit property mentioned in the plaint and also possession and declaration that the judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 2-A/1978 are not binding on them.
( 5 ) THE defendants No. 1,2 and 6 filed the written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It has specifically been denied by the defendants that the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are their brothers and their property is joint Hindu family property. It has further been mentioned if it has been held that the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 and plaintiffs are the sons of the defendant No. 1, hence, they are illegal and they are not entitled any share in the property of the defendant No. 1. It has been pleaded that defendants No. 8 and 9 have gifted the land in favour of defendant No. 2 and he became the owner of the said land and the land is not the ancestral one.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 are the real brothers but the plaintiffs and other defendants are not the members of undivided Hindu family property. Neither property mentioned in Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 nor they are owners of th
