Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, R.VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ
N.Harikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Parameshwari – Respondent
First Appeal|A.S.(MD).No.35 of 2019|O.S.No.06 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Thirunavukkarasu
For the Respondents: S.Anand Chandrasekar, M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
A plaintiff seeking a negative declaration regarding marital status carries the burden of proof and cannot succeed without adequate evidence to substantiate claims.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 & Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - The plaintiff sought a declaration regarding marital status and legitimacy of children but failed to establish his previous marriage and legitimacy claims. The trial court dismissed the suit based on lack of evidence and limitation grounds. (Paras 7, 22, 24)
(B) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claiming a negative declaration must establish the facts supporting his claim. Dismissal followed due to failure to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims made against the defendants. (Paras 18, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed suit for a declaration regarding the marital status against claims made by the first defendant, who alleged marriage and legitimacy of the second defendant. The suit was dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence and limitation.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no proof of marriage with Nagavalli nor of the children’s legitimacy.
Issues: Whether the first defendant is legally the wife and the second defendant the legitimate son of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who failed to demonstrate necessary legal connections.
Result: The First Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of plaintiff's appeal and the claims made. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of no marriage and legitimacy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defendants argue validity of marriage and linkage to maintenance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. trial court's findings on suit's admissibility and relationships. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. arguments regarding evidence and maintenance status. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 6. legal argumentation by counsels. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. analysis of plaintiff's failure to prove legal claims. (Para 16 , 18 , 22) |
| 8. analysis of case findings and evidentiary burden. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23) |
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul has filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit which was filed for a declaration that the first defendant is not his legally wedded wife and the second defendant is not his legitimate son. The plaintiff had further prayed that the defendants should not make any claim as if they are the wife and son of the plaintiff.
(A).Summary of the plaint is as follows:
2.The plaintiff had married one Nagavalli and he is blessed with three sons namely Sethupathi, Boopathi and Pasupathi. There is no marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant and they have never lived together as husband and wife. There is no connection between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
3.The first defendant and her mother made a request to the plaintiff to marry the first defendant. However, the plaintiff has not agreed for the same. Therefore, the first defendant for herself and for her son (born without marriage) claimed maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the status of the plaintiff has become doubtful and there is a possibility of wrong perception being created as against him. Hence, the present suit.
(B).Summary of the written statement is as follows:
4.The marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant was conducted as per Hindu Customs in Pillaiyar Temple. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the first defendant lived together as husband and wife and through the said wedlock, the second defendant was born. Thereafter, the plaintiff harassed the first defendant demanding dowry. Hence, a criminal case was lodged as against the plaintiff and he was convicted confirming that the first defendant is the wife of the plaintiff.
5.The defendant had also filed MC.No.19 of 1994 before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul seeking maintenance and the same was allowed and confirmed in appeal. Pursuant to this order, the first defendant and her minor son are receiving maintenance from the plaintiff. Only to evade the payment of maintenance, the present suit has been filed. Since the marital status of the first defendant had already been declared in the previous proceedings, the present suit is barred by principle of res judicata.
6.The plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and his relative was examined as PW2. On the side of the plaintiff, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The first defendant has examined herself as DW1 and a villager has been examined as DW2. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.
(C).The trial Court had rendered the following findings:
7.(a)The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the first defendant had filed MC.No.18 of 1994. However, the present suit has been filed after a period of three years i.e on 15.03.2007 and hence, the present suit is barred under
b)During cross examination, PW1 has admitted that the second defendant is his son.
c)The plaintiff has not proved his marriage with Nagavalli. The plaintiff has not mentioned the date of marriage or the year of marriage with Nagavalli.
d)The plaintiff has not proved that Sethupathi, Boopathi and Pasupathi are his sons and they are born to him through Nagavalli.
e)The plaintiff having claimed declaratory relief, the entire burden is upon him to prove his marriage with Nagavalli. However, he has failed to discha
