Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute arising from a suit filed by Ramabai, widow of Dharma Khobragade, seeking declaration that a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 Dama in favour of defendant No.2 Shantabai was null and void, and for recovery of possession. Ramabai died during the suit, and her son Bija (respondent) prosecuted it. The suit property originally belonged to Dharma. The parties are related: Dharma had two sons, Bija (respondent) and Kisan (appellant No.3). Defendant No.2 Shantabai is Kisan's wife. Defendant No.1 Dama claimed to be the husband of Manjulabai, daughter of Ramabai and Dharma, who predeceased her father. After Manjulabai's death, Dama executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of Shantabai. The plaintiff contended that Dama was never married to Manjulabai and thus had no title to convey. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the burden of proof regarding the marriage of Dama with Manjulabai was correctly placed. The court held that the burden was on Dama to prove his marriage, as he claimed title through it. The evidence showed that Manjulabai was first married to Dahu Dahiwale, who lived with her at her parents' house. After Dahu's death, there was no evidence of any marriage between Dama and Manjulabai. The witnesses examined by the defendants were interested parties and their testimony was not reliable. The court found that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and placed the burden on the defendant. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Succession - Inheritance by Widower - Sections 8, 15, 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The plaintiff challenged a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 claiming to be the widower of predeceased daughter Manjulabai. The court held that the burden of proving marriage lies on the person asserting it. Since defendant No.1 failed to prove his marriage to Manjulabai, he had no title to the property and could not convey any. The sale deed was rightly declared void. (Paras 5-10) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Marriage - Section 50, Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court examined the presumption of marriage under Section 50 and Section 114. It held that mere cohabitation or reputation does not establish marriage unless supported by evidence of continuous cohabitation and public recognition. In this case, there was no evidence of marriage or cohabitation, and the presumption was rebutted. (Paras 6-9) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the burden of proof of marriage. The court found that the lower courts had correctly placed the burden on the defendant and that the findings were based on evidence. No interference was warranted. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/defendant No.1 Dama was validly married to Manjulabai and thus entitled to inherit her share in the suit property, and consequently whether the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No.2 Shantabai was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the decrees of the lower courts.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Marriage presumption
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 15
- Section 16
- Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 50
- Section 114
