Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial

Calcutta High Court Upholds Right to Partition Based on Documentary Evidence of Paternity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking ruling, the judiciary has reaffirmed the significance of documentary evidence in determining familial relationships in partition suits. The judgment, delivered by Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury on October 19, 2023, sets a precedent for similar cases by emphasizing the importance of credible documentation over oral testimony.

The case revolved around a partition suit concerning the ownership of a property. The plaintiff claimed to be the biological son of the original owner and sought a share in the property, which the defendants vehemently opposed, denying any such relationship. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, acknowledging the plaintiff's claim.

Justice Chowdhury's observation in the judgment highlights the pivotal role of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to opinions on relationships. The court noted, "Opinion on the relationship between individuals is admissible under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in this case, it is crucial to consider the documentary evidence presented."

The crux of the judgment lies in the burden of proof. The plaintiff supported their claim with a wealth of documentary evidence, including school records and birth certificates, all pointing to a father-son relationship with the original owner. On the other hand, the defendants relied solely on oral testimony, which the court found insufficient to counter the substantial probative value of the documentary evidence.

In upholding the judgment of the first appellate court, Justice Chowdhury affirmed the plaintiff's right to partition, setting a precedent that emphasizes the primacy of documented evidence in such cases.

This decision draws parallels to several prior cases and legal principles, reinforcing the importance of credible documentation in establishing familial relationships. Advocates representing the parties in this case, including Mr. Prantick Ghosh, drew from legal precedents such as DOL GOBINDA PARICHA VS. NIMAI CHARAN MISHRA, among others, to bolster their arguments.

Date of Decision: 19th October 2023

MINATI BHADRA & ORS.  vs   DILIP KR. BHADRA & ORS.       

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19_October_2023-Minati_Bhadra_Ors_vs_Dilip_Kr_Bhadra_Ors.pdf"]

Latest Legal News