Naveen Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-
appellant. Indisputably, the first wife of Chhatrapati died in
the very early age and immediately thereafter the original
defendant No.1 Phoolbasa Bai started living with Chhatrapati
as his second wife. Out of the wedlock of Phoolbasa Bai and
Chhatrapati, one son was born, whose name was Mannu Lal.
The said son of Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai died
unmarried. It is also not in dispute that the original owner
Shiv Ram had only one son namely, Chhatrapati and one
daughter
Sumitrabai.
Phoolbasa
Bai
died
during
the
pendency of the suit in the year 1992. The relationship of
Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai has not been denied. It has
also not been denied that they had been living together as
husband and wife in a joint family.
In the fact of the case there is strong presumption in
favour of the validity of a marriage and the legitimacy of its
child for the reason that the relationship of Chhatrapati and
Phoolbasa Bai are recognized by all persons concerned.
13. In the case of A. Dinohamy vs. W.L. Balahamy, AIR
1927 PC 185, it was held that where a man and woman are
proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law
will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they
were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and
not in a state of concubinage.
The Court observed as
follows-
“The parties lived together for twenty years in
the same house, and eight children were born
to them. The husband during his life
recognized, by affectionate provisions, his wife,
and children, The evidence' of the Registrar of
the District shows that for a long course of
years the parties were recognized as married
citizens, and even the family functions and
ceremonies, such as, in particular, the
reception of the relations and other guests in
the family house by Don Andris and Balahamy
as host and hostess--all such functions were
conducted on the footing alone that they were
man and wife. No evidence whatsoever is
afforded of repudiation of this relation by
husband or wife or anybody.”
In the case of Gokal Chand vs. Parvin Kumari, AIR
1952 SC 231, this Court observed that continuous co-
habitation of woman as husband and wife and their
treatment as such for a number of years may raise the
presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be
drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and if there are
circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption,
the Court cannot ignore them.
It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of
marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman
have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the
presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable
evidence.
A heavy burden lies on a party, who seeks to
deprive the relationship of legal origin. In the instant case,
instead of adducing unimpeachable evidence by the plaintiff,
a plea was taken that the defendant has failed to prove the
fact that Phoolbasa Bai was the legally married wife of
Chhatrapati.
The High Court, therefore, came to a correct
conclusion by recording a finding that Phoolbasa Bai was the
legally married wife of Chhatrapati.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.3410 of 2007
DHANNULAL v GANESHRAM
Dated;April 08, 2015.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
High Court, partly dismissing First Appeal No.92 of 2001,
both
the
plaintiff
and
the
aforementioned two appeals.
defendant
have
filed
the
While confirming judgment
and decree, the High Court reversed the finding recorded by
the trial court on the issue of will executed by the testatrix.
2.
The plaintiff-Ganeshram, appellant in Civil Appeal
No.3411 of 2007, filed suit for declaration, possession and
damages in relation to the two suit houses described in
Schedule A & B of the plaint, pleading inter alia that the
registered sale deed of 1987, executed by Phoolbasa Bai
(original defendant no.1, who died during the pendency of
the suit) in favour of defendant no.5 Mukesh Kumar
Chourasia, which relates to some portion of suit house, be
declared illegal, void and not binding on him.
3.
To understand factual matrix and issue involved in the
case, we would like to reproduce here the pedigree table as
submitted before us:
Shivram
(Died in 1932)
____________________________________|_____________________________
|
|
Sumitrabai (Daughter)(died in 1976)
Chhatrapati(Son) (died in 1945)
Husband of Sumitra-Mangal Prasad Kept-wife: Phulbasabai (def.no.1)
(Died in 1954)
|
|
Mannulal (son)(
|
(died unmarried on 14.4.1967)
______|___________________________
|
|
Shyamlal (son)
Radha Bai (daughter)
(died in 1973)
|
_______|____________________________________________________
|
|
|
Ganeshram (son)
Laxmi Bai (daughter)
Ganga Bai (daughter)
Plaintiff
4.
The suit property was originally owned by Shivram who
had a daughter Sumitrabai and a son Chhatrapati. The
plaintiff, the grandson of Sumitrabai, filed a suit for
declaration of ownership, possession and damages in
relation to the suit property against defendant nos.1 to 5.
The plaintiff challenged the validity of the Will dated
18.08.1977 purported to have been executed by Phoolbasa
Bai in favour of the sons of her brother Gayaprasad,
defendant nos.1-4. The plaintiff also challenged the validity
of the sale deed purported to have been executed by
Phoolbasa Bai in 1987 in favour of defendant no. 5 in relation
to a portion of the suit property.
5.
The
plaintiff
alleged
that
Sumitrabai
(plaintiff’s
grandmother) had become the owner of the suit property by
adverse possession having stayed therein, after the death of
her husband Mangal, with her father Shivram till his death in
1932 and till her own death in 1976.
Phoolbasa Bai was
alleged to have been the mistress and not the legally
wedded wife of Chhatrapati and their son was alleged to
have died unmarried and issueless in 1967. The sale deed
and the Will purported to have been executed by Phoolbasa
Bai were alleged to be illegal.
6.
The suit was contested firstly by filing joint written
statement by the original defendants namely Phoolbasa Bai
and Gaya Prasad stating that after the death of Shiv Ram
the entire property was succeeded by Chhatrapati (his only
son) as Sumitrabai was a married daughter. It was further
pleaded that Phoolbasa Bai, being the lawful wedded wife of
Chhatrapati, became the owner of the suit property after
Chhatrapati’s death in 1945.
During the pendency of the
suit, when Phoolbasa died, she was substituted by defendant
nos.1 to 4, who also filed separate written statement in
addition to earlier written statement filed by the original
defendants.
Defendant no.5 also filed separate written
statement claiming to be the owner of the portion of
property by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour in
1987.
7.
The trial court dismissed the civil suit holding that the
Will executed by Phoolbasa in the year 1977 in favour of
defendants nos.1 to 4 is legal and the sale effected by her
during the pendency of the civil suit in favour of defendant
no.5 is also legal and valid.
The trial judge recorded the
finding that Sumitra Bai had not perfected her title by
adverse possession and the plaintiff could not establish that
Phoolbasa Bai was a concubine of late Chhatrapati. The trial
court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to
establish that the Will was a fraudulent and fabricated
document.
8.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial
court, plaintiff moved the High Court preferring First Appeal,
which was partly dismissed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court. Although learned Single Judge set aside the
finding of the trial court on the issue of validity of the Will on
the ground that the Will was not proved as per law, but
upheld the sale deed executed by Phoolbasa Bai in favour of
defendant no.5. The concluding paragraphs of the impugned
order are, therefore, quoted hereinbelow:
“In the facts and circumstances, the sale in favour of
defendant no.5 was a valid sale and the same cannot
be held to be illegal, void and not binding against the
plaintiff. The arguments advanced in this regard
cannot be accepted.
Now the question arises, what should be the legal
position after the death of Smt. Phoolbasa and her
son namely Mannulal when it has been held that the
alleged will executed in favour of defendants nos.1 to
4 was not proved. Certainly these properties were
succeeded by her from her husband or from her
father-in-law, therefore, according to Section 15(2)(b)
of the Hindu Succesion Act, this shall devolve, in the
absence of any son or daughter of the deceased
(including the children of any predeceased son or
daughter) upon the heirs of her husband. In this
case, if we look to the pedigree set forth in the plaint,
the succeeding heir of her husband, namely
Chhatrapati, would be sister’s daughter which finds
place as serial no.4 in Entry IV of Class II of Schedule.
When Radha Bai, the sister’s daughter is said to be
alive on the date of succession according to the
plaint allegations itself, then the plaintiff, in the
reversionary right will not get the ownership of the
property.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment
and decree passed by the trial court are hereby
confirmed with the aforesaid modifications in the
finding regard the ‘Will’.”
9.
Hence, present cross appeals filed by both side against
each other including purchaser-defendant no.5. Defendants
nos.1 to 4 have preferred Civil Appeal No.3410 of 2007 and
the plaintiff has preferred Civil Appeal No.3411 of 2007.
10. Mr. Naveen Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff-appellant in C.A. No.3411 of 2007 assailed the
finding on the relationship of Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai
as husband and legally married wife.
Learned counsel
submitted that no witness from the side of defendant has
been examined to prove the marriage of Phoolbasa Bai with
Chhatrapati.
Learned counsel further submitted that no
finding has been recorded by the Trial Court or the Appellate
Court as to when Chhatrapati died. However, in course of
argument, learned counsel does not deny that Phoolbasa Bai
was living with the joint family when Chhatrapati was alive
for the last 20 years, but there is no evidence of valid
marriage.
11. We are unable to accept the submissions made by Mr.
Naveen Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-
appellant. Indisputably, the first wife of Chhatrapati died in
the very early age and immediately thereafter the original
defendant No.1 Phoolbasa Bai started living with Chhatrapati
as his second wife. Out of the wedlock of Phoolbasa Bai and
Chhatrapati, one son was born, whose name was Mannu Lal.
The said son of Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai died
unmarried. It is also not in dispute that the original owner
Shiv Ram had only one son namely, Chhatrapati and one
daughter
Sumitrabai.
Phoolbasa
Bai
died
during
the
pendency of the suit in the year 1992. The relationship of
Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai has not been denied. It has
also not been denied that they had been living together as
husband and wife in a joint family.
12. In the fact of the case there is strong presumption in
favour of the validity of a marriage and the legitimacy of its
child for the reason that the relationship of Chhatrapati and
Phoolbasa Bai are recognized by all persons concerned.
13. In the case of A. Dinohamy vs. W.L. Balahamy, AIR
1927 PC 185, it was held that where a man and woman are
proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law
will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they
were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and
not in a state of concubinage.
The Court observed as
follows-
“The parties lived together for twenty years in
the same house, and eight children were born
to them. The husband during his life
recognized, by affectionate provisions, his wife,
and children, The evidence' of the Registrar of
the District shows that for a long course of
years the parties were recognized as married
citizens, and even the family functions and
ceremonies, such as, in particular, the
reception of the relations and other guests in
the family house by Don Andris and Balahamy
as host and hostess--all such functions were
conducted on the footing alone that they were
man and wife. No evidence whatsoever is
afforded of repudiation of this relation by
husband or wife or anybody.”
14. In the case of Gokal Chand vs. Parvin Kumari, AIR
1952 SC 231, this Court observed that continuous co-
habitation of woman as husband and wife and their
treatment as such for a number of years may raise the
presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be
drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and if there are
circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption,
the Court cannot ignore them.
15. It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of
marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman
have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the
presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable
evidence.
A heavy burden lies on a party, who seeks to
deprive the relationship of legal origin. In the instant case,
instead of adducing unimpeachable evidence by the plaintiff,
a plea was taken that the defendant has failed to prove the
fact that Phoolbasa Bai was the legally married wife of
Chhatrapati.
The High Court, therefore, came to a correct
conclusion by recording a finding that Phoolbasa Bai was the
legally married wife of Chhatrapati.
16. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in
C.A. No.3411 of 2007.
17. So far the validity of will is concerned, the High Court
after considering a catena of decisions came to the following
conclusion:-
“26. If we apply the above law in the present
matter it would appear that the attesting witnesses
were not examined because they were not alive
and will has been proved by only examining the
scribe as P.W.3. Though it has been stated by the
Scribe that he has drafted and typed the will on
the instructions of the testatrix, but this fact
appears to be false on the face of the document
itself; There are many suspicious circumstances
appearing on the face of document which go to
suggest that in fact, nothing was drafted or typed
by the scribe on the instructions of the testatrix,
but a typed matter was placed before him for
getting it registered showing as the will of the
testatrix. First of all, it would appear that though
the will has ended in the very second sheet but
there is no space left for signature of the scribe
and the scribe has inserted his signature in
between the last two lines by using an ink pen.
Secondly it appears that the complete date like
18.8.1977 was not typed in the second page and
only -8-1977 was typed and figures like 18 have
been inserted by an ink pen showing as the
document was executed on 18.8.1977. EX.D-72
Muktarnama was also written and signed on the
said date and the suspicious circumstance appears
that when this document (Muktarnama) was being
executed, the thumb impression over the alleged
will was also taken by the beneficiaries and the
document writer was shown to be the Scribe of the
document whereas, in fact, the document was not
scribed by him. Another important circumstance is
that the original defendant namely Smt. Phoolbasa
had died on 20.9.1992 after filing of her written
statement on 14.7.1987. The date of execution of
the will is 18.8.1977 but there is no whisper of her
will in her written statement which she had filed on
the said date. Though it was not a requirement of
law, but under a normal human nature if she has
pleaded the detailed administration of property,
vide para 9 of her written statement, right from its
acquisition by Shiv Ram to the date of filing of the
suit, (please see para 9 of the written statement).
She should have mentioned something about the
will, if this alleged will was in her knowledge and
she in fact had executed the same in favour of
defendant no. 1 to 4. These circumstances which
are highly suspicious, have not been removed or
cleared by the beneficiaries of the will and only by
examining the scribe, who is not an attesting
witness and whose statement is not very
satisfactory in appreciation on all above points,
particularly in the situation when the testatrix was
residing in the dominion of the beneficiaries and
their father and was keeping a fiduciary relations
with them, it cannot be held that a due execution
of will has been proved by the defendants in
accordance with the provisions of section 68 or
other provisions of the Evidence Act. The finding
recorded by the court below that due execution of
the will is proved, is not in accordance with law
and the same is set aside. The will is held to be not
proved in this case.”
18. It is evident from the findings recorded by the High
Court in the paragraph referred to hereinabove that the Will
suffers
from
serious
suspicious
circumstances.
The
execution of a document does not mean mechanical act of
signing the document or getting it signed, but an intelligent
appreciation of the contents of the document and signing it
in token of acceptance of those contents.
19. Proof of a Will stands in a higher degree in comparison
to other documents. There must be a clear evidence of the
attesting witnesses or other witnesses that the contents of
the Will were read over to the executant and he, after
admitting the same to be correct, puts his signature in
presence of the witnesses. It is only after the executant puts
his signature,
the attesting witnesses
shall
put
their
signatures in the presence of the executant.
20. In
the
instant
case,
the
suspicious
circumstance
appears to be that when the Will was being executed, the
thumb impression over the alleged Will was also taken by
the beneficiaries and the document-writer was shown to be
scribe of the document, whereas the document was not
scribed by him. However, late Phoolbasa Bai although filed
written statement before her death, but she did not whisper
anything
about
the
Will
in
the
written
statement.
Admittedly, the Will was allegedly executed in 1977 whereas
the written statement was filed some time in 1987. Taking
into consideration all these facts, we do not filed any error in
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.
The said
finding, therefore, needs no interference by this Court.
21. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in
these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
..................................J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
..................................J.
(Amitava Roy)
New Delhi,
April 08, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment