IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Marriage is Not a Child’s Play, Says Supreme Court in Partition Suit Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court’s reversal of Trial Court’s findings upheld due to lack of evidence proving matrimonial relationship and paternity.

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the High Court’s dismissal of a suit for partition and separate possession, filed by the appellant claiming to be the son of the respondent from an alleged marriage. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, emphasized the appellant’s failure to provide adequate evidence of the matrimonial relationship and the resultant paternity, thus reversing the favorable decisions from the lower courts.

The appellant, Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar, had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of property, asserting that he was born from the wedlock of his mother, Padminibai, and the respondent, Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar. The Trial Court granted the appellant a 1/5th share in the property, a decision which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. However, the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, later reversed these findings, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court observed that the appellant bore a heavy burden to establish the alleged matrimonial relationship between his mother and the respondent. Justice Rajesh Bindal noted, “The appellant/plaintiff has not been able to establish that there were any matrimonial relations between the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 and Padminibai.” The evidence presented by the appellant, primarily oral, was deemed insufficient to substantiate the claims of marriage and paternity.

The Court highlighted significant discrepancies in the evidence provided by the appellant. The primary witness, Padminibai, was not produced to corroborate the claims. Additionally, the appellant’s delay in filing the suit—nearly 16-17 years after attaining majority—further weakened his case. The High Court had noted that Padminibai had remarried, and there was no clear evidence of divorce from the respondent prior to this second marriage.

Addressing the appellant’s contention that the High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence, the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction. The High Court found the lower courts’ acceptance of the appellant’s claims to be perverse, given the lack of concrete evidence and the significant time lapse before the claim was raised.

Justice Rajesh Bindal remarked, “From the perusal of the judgment of the High Court, it is evident that the relevant facts to establish the factum of marriage of mother of appellant/plaintiff with respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 were not considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. There were large scale discrepancies in the evidence led.”

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores the necessity of robust and timely evidence in matrimonial and paternity claims within property disputes. By affirming the High Court’s decision, the judgment reiterates the judiciary’s stringent standards for evidence in such cases, ensuring that claims must be substantiated with credible proof. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving disputed matrimonial relationships and inheritance claims.

 

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar vs. Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar and Others

Similar News