Law Presumes in Favour of Marriage and Not Concubinage: Supreme Court Upholds Children’s Right in Property Through Presumed Valid Wedlock

“A Strong Presumption Arises in Favour of Wedlock Where Parties Lived as Husband and Wife—Silence of Defendant Who Could Rebut It Carries Serious Consequences”: In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India affirmed the presumption of a valid marriage from prolonged cohabitation, holding that children born out of such a union are entitled to a share in the joint family property.

The Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the second wife and her son (defendants), upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decree of partition in favour of the children born from the deceased’s first marriage, restoring their half share in the suit schedule properties.

“Presumption of Marriage Is Strong Where There’s Long Cohabitation—Burden Lies on the One Who Disputes It”

The case revolved around the claim of two sons (plaintiffs) born from Bheemakka @ Sathyakka, who alleged to be the first wife of one Dasabovi, a man who later married a second woman, Chowdamma (defendant no. 1). The plaintiffs were ousted from the household and later denied any share in the joint family property by the second wife and her son, who claimed exclusive inheritance by asserting that Chowdamma was the only legally wedded wife.

The Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition. However, the High Court reversed the finding based on oral evidence and adverse inferences against the defendants. Upholding this view, the Supreme Court held:

“A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.”

This principle was anchored in the precedent laid down in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978) 3 SCC 527 and affirmed by the Court in this case.

“Defendant’s Refusal to Enter Witness Box Shows Conscious Evasion—Adverse Presumption Must Follow”

A decisive factor in the case was the failure of Chowdamma (defendant no. 1) to enter the witness box and depose. Although she claimed medical inability due to arthritis, the Court found that she had in fact attended court proceedings multiple times, including during the cross-examination of other witnesses. Criticizing this deliberate silence, the Court held:

“This is not a case of medical inability but of deliberate silence... In civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences.”

Citing Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573, the Bench ruled that such refusal justifies drawing an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

“Section 50 of the Evidence Act Supports Oral Testimony on Relationship—Proof of Marriage Can Rest on Community Knowledge”

The Court deeply engaged with Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits reliance on the opinion of a person having special knowledge of family relationships, even if that knowledge is acquired through association and conduct rather than documents.

Here, the oral testimony of Hanumanthappa (PW2), a 75-year-old villager who had long-standing familiarity with both families, was found reliable and rooted in personal observation. He testified to the marriage of Dasabovi and Bheemakka, the birth of the plaintiffs, and the couple’s cohabitation:

“His evidence is consistent with Section 50 of the Evidence Act and is rooted in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance with both the plaintiffs and defendants.”

The Court also accepted the genealogical chart presented by the plaintiffs, noting that it aligned with PW2’s testimony and that the defendants’ own chart excluded the plaintiffs without explanation.

“Revenue Records Don’t Prove Title—Only Fiscal Entries, Not Proof of Marriage or Heirship”

The defendants had relied heavily on revenue entries in their name to claim exclusive rights to the property. Rejecting this, the Supreme Court emphasized that revenue records are not conclusive of ownership or heirship, stating:

“Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only fiscal purpose and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.”

Citing Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, the Court clarified that title to property and proof of marriage must be decided by competent civil courts based on evidence and not administrative records.

“Burden of Proof Successfully Discharged by Plaintiffs—Defendants Failed to Rebut Presumption”

The Court found that the plaintiffs had successfully discharged their initial burden of proving the relationship through oral testimony, conduct, and genealogical records, shifting the burden onto the defendants.

The defendants, however, failed to rebut the presumption either by evidence or cross-examination. The Supreme Court thus held: “When measured against the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the scales unambiguously tilt in favour of the plaintiffs.”

Appeal Dismissed, High Court Partition Decree Affirmed

The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s decision dated 28.10.2010, which had decreed half share of the family property in favour of the plaintiffs, and therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

The verdict upholds key evidentiary and equitable principles in Indian family law, reaffirming that long cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage, and courts must prefer legitimacy over bastardy unless strong proof suggests otherwise.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2025