Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court has allowed the appeals and set aside the decree for partition passed by the Trial Court.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the plaintiffs and Kattukandi Idathil Karunakaran was the defendant who died during the pendency of the suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs contended that the suit property belonged to one Kattukandi Edathil Kanaran Vaidyar who had four sons viz. Damodaran, Achuthan, Sekharan and Narayanan. The first plaintiff is the son of Damodaran, born in the wedlock with one Chiruthakutty, and the second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs claimed half share in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the defendants that all the children except Achuthan died as bachelors and Karunakaran is the only son of Achuthan. The Trial Court found that Damodaran had a long cohabitation with Chiruthakutty and that due to such cohabitation, it could be concluded that Damodaran had married Chiruthakutty and that the first plaintiff was the son born in the said wedlock. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into two shares and one such share was allotted to the plaintiffs. Allowing the appeal filed by defendant HC held that there is no evidence to establish the long cohabitation between the father and the mother of the first plaintiff and the documents only proved that the first plaintiff is the son of Damodaran, but not a legitimate son, thereby denied partition of the property.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that voluminous documents produced by the plaintiffs would show that Damodaran was the father of the first plaintiff and Chiruthakutty was the wife of Damodaran. Since their marriage took place more than 50 years prior to filing of the suit (now 90 years), there is no possibility of having any documentary evidence of their marriage.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, there is no proof whatsoever either of the marriage or of the long cohabitation and that all the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are documents that came into existence after the death of Damodaran.
SC’s Observations:
The question for consideration before the SC was whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the long co-habitation to establish the relationship of husband wife between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty?
SC stated that, if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Although, the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that, “the documents and evidence on record would show the long duration of cohabitation between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty as husband and wife. The defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of a marriage between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty on account of their long cohabitation. In the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said judgment of the Trial Court. Resultantly, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed.”
Case Title: Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.
Bench: J. S. Abdul Nazeer and J. Vikram Nath
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 64066407 OF 2010
Decided on: 13th June, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
