Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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