Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute regarding the legitimacy of a child born to the second wife of a man who had multiple marriages. The infant plaintiff, represented by his maternal uncle, sought a partition of joint family properties, claiming to be the legitimate son of the defendant No. 1. The defendant denied paternity, alleging misconduct by the plaintiff's mother. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that there was non-access between the husband and wife during the time of conception. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the application of section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during lawful wedlock. The court found that the defendant did not provide satisfactory evidence of non-access, and the High Court's conclusions were based on speculation rather than proven facts. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decision, affirming the legitimacy of the plaintiff and ordering costs to be paid by the defendant.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Presumption of Legitimacy - Conclusive Presumption of Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112 - The presumption of legitimacy under section 112 is conclusive and can only be displaced by clear proof of non-access between the parties at the time of conception. The court held that the defendant failed to prove non-access, thus affirming the legitimacy of the child born during the marriage (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption of legitimacy under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act was successfully rebutted by proof of non-access.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, affirming the legitimacy of the plaintiff and ordering costs against the defendant.
Law Points
- conclusive presumption of legitimacy
- non-access
- Indian Evidence Act
- burden of proof
- marital intercourse
