Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be the son of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 from his marriage with Padminibai. The Trial Court decreed the suit granting 1/5th share, and the First Appellate Court affirmed. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the concurrent findings and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in interfering because the findings of the lower courts were perverse. The plaintiff had failed to prove the marriage between his alleged mother and the defendant; the key witness (Padminibai) was not produced, there were large discrepancies in oral evidence, and the suit was filed after a long delay. The burden of proof was heavy and not discharged. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no merit in the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Reappreciation of Evidence - Perverse Findings - The High Court in a second appeal can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence or misreading of evidence. In the present case, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had decreed the suit for partition based solely on oral evidence, without producing the key witness (the alleged mother) and ignoring large-scale discrepancies. The High Court rightly set aside the concurrent findings as perverse. (Paras 3-6) B) Family Law - Proof of Marriage - Burden of Proof - In a suit for partition claiming to be a son from a marriage, the plaintiff bears a heavy burden to prove the factum of marriage when it is denied. Mere oral evidence without producing the alleged spouse or any documentary evidence is insufficient. The plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 4-6) C) Limitation - Delay in Filing Suit - Laches - The suit was filed 16-17 years after the plaintiff attained majority, and no claim was raised earlier. This delay, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff resided with his mother and her second husband, weakened his case. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal on the ground that the findings were perverse and based on no evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs
Law Points
- Burden of proof in partition suits
- Reappreciation of evidence in second appeal
- Perverse findings
- Proof of marriage and paternity
