Back
Long Cohabitation Presumes Valid Marriage Even If Customary Rite Unproven:
In a significant ruling on family and property law, the has held that when a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for an extended period, the law presumes a valid marriage — even if the specific customary rite alleged cannot be proved through direct evidence. Justice Pranay Verma dismissed a second appeal by a son challenging his half-siblings' claim to a share in ancestral property, affirming that a 26-year cohabitation between his father and stepmother raised a under .
A Family Feud Over Land and Legacy
The dispute traces back to one Dhunna, who had two wives. From his first wife Nimiya (deceased), he had a son, Fulla (the appellant). After Nimiya's death, Dhunna married Rajiyabai under the local "Kari" system, and from that union were born Munna and another son (the respondent-plaintiffs). Following a partition with his brothers, Dhunna received 3.79 acres of land and built a house.
Trouble began when Fulla sued Dhunna claiming half the property. That suit ended in a compromise — Fulla got 1.50 acres and a one-third share in the house. The plaintiffs, who said they only learned of this compromise in and were never made parties to it, sued for a declaration of their two-thirds share and symbolic possession.
While Dhunna and Rajiyabai admitted the plaintiffs' claim, Fulla contested it on the ground that Rajiyabai was not a legally wedded wife and that the plaintiffs were illegitimate. The trial court partly decreed the suit, but the first appellate court set that aside, granting the plaintiffs a two-fifths share in the lands and house.
The
Before the High Court, Fulla argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a Kari marriage, and that without such proof, a presumption under Section 114 could not be drawn. The court, however, examined the evidence and found that Dhunna and Rajiyabai had lived together as husband and wife for 26 years. Independent witnesses confirmed their societal recognition as a married couple.
"There is no one in the village except defendant no.2, who does not treat defendant nos.1 and 3 as husband and wife,"
the court noted.
Relying on the 's decision in
, which reiterated that
"a
where the partners have lived together for a
,"
Justice Verma held that this presumption could only be displaced by
— a burden the appellant had failed to discharge.
Why the Compromise Failed
The appellant also contended that Dhunna, as
of the joint family, could enter a binding compromise. The High Court rejected this, noting that there was no evidence the suit property was
or that Dhunna acted as
. Moreover, the plaintiffs were never parties to the earlier suit.
"The judgment and decree passed therein will not be binding upon them,"
the court held.
Key Observations
"The presumption would always be for rather than being for its illegitimacy."
"A where the partners have lived together for a ."
"No evidence has been led by defendant no.2 to show that Rajiya was not wife of defendant no.1."
Court's Decision
Answering all three against the appellant, the High Court affirmed the first appellate court's judgment and dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that long, continuous cohabitation as husband and wife creates a presumption of a valid marriage, and that cannot bind those who were not impleaded as parties.
