Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay 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