Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arose from a suit for possession of agricultural lands filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Motiram, who claimed inheritance as the brother of Ganpat, the original owner. Ganpat and his wife Tukadibai died issueless, and Motiram alleged that the respondents (defendants) forcibly took possession of the suit properties. The respondents claimed right through a Patmarriage between Ganpat and Saibai, the sister of Tukadibai, and asserted that Saibai executed a sale deed in 1967 based on an alleged partition by Ganpat. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that the respondents failed to prove the Patmarriage or any custom, and that the earlier suit by Tukadibai did not bar Motiram's suit. The appellate court reversed, holding the Patmarriage proved based on witness testimony it considered unchallenged and relying on Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR 1978 SC 1557) for a presumption of marriage from cohabitation. On second appeal, the High Court examined whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on proof of Patmarriage. The Court analyzed the oral evidence: DW1 Vithoba (son of Saibai) stated the Patmarriage occurred when he was a child, and DW2 Govinda claimed it happened in 1946-47 but admitted he did not attend and belonged to a different caste. No evidence was led about the custom of Patmarriage in the community. The High Court noted that the appellate court misread the cross-examination of DW2, which specifically challenged his version, and wrongly applied the Badri Prasad presumption, which requires prima facie evidence of long cohabitation as husband and wife—absent here. Concluding that the trial court's findings were not perverse and the appellate court's reversal was based on a misappreciation of evidence and misapplication of law, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for possession.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Standard of Proof for Customary Marriage (Patmarriage) - Party pleading custom must prove existence of custom and the fact of marriage/cohabitation; mere oral statements insufficient without evidence of custom - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The suit for possession turned on whether defendants proved Patmarriage between Ganpat and Saibai. The trial court found no evidence of custom or credible cohabitation. The appellate court reversed by misreading cross-examination and wrongly applying Badri Prasad, which requires prima facie proof of long cohabitation. Held, that the appellate court's reversal was erroneous and the trial court decree was correctly passed. (Paras 9-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's finding that the defendants failed to prove Patmarriage between Ganpat and Saibai, and whether the Supreme Court judgment in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (AIR 1978 SC 1557) was correctly applied.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Appellate Court dated 12-09-1997 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored, and the suit of the plaintiffs stands decreed as originally directed.
Law Points
- Party pleading customary marriage must prove custom and cohabitation
- presumption of valid marriage arises only upon proof of long cohabitation
- appellate court cannot reverse trial court findings unless perverse
- and misreading evidence is error of law.
