Re: Electoral Roll (Ex. 74):
22. The Electoral Roll (Ex. 74) showed the Respondents as husband and wife and they were staying in the premises No. 289 in the year 1991. The appellate court held that Ex. 74 showed the Respondents as the residents of premises No. 289 in the year 1991 and if the second Respondent was a mere licensee and if there was no marriage solemnized between her and the first Respondent, the name of first Respondent would not have been recorded as husband in Ex. 74. From this the first appellate court inferred that the second Respondent was not a mere licensee and Appellants had failed to prove that the first Respondent was not the husband of the second Respondent.
23. The Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a tenant or as a licensee. It may at best show that the person was residing in the premises. The fact that both Respondents were residing in the premises had never been disputed. If they represented that they were husband and wife, the electoral roll will reflect the same. The inference drawn by the first appellate court from the electoral roll, that second Respondent was not a mere licensee, is totally illogical and unsustainable.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011
Decided On: 30.09.2011
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment