It Was Sought To Be Established As If Marriage Was A Child's Play: SC Upholds Dismissal Of A Partition Suit
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a partition suit by the Bombay High Court which reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court for being perverse.
The Court explained that the relevant facts to the partition suit were neither considered by the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court. The Court stated that the High Court had also noticed the fact that the mother of the appellant had re-married claiming that the same was solemnized after she was abandoned by the respondent. “From the pleadings and oral evidence it was sought to be established, as if the marriage was a child’s play,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “Firstly, 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. Secondly, even if there was any marriage, nothing is pleaded as to whether there was any divorce before she re-married… The High Court had rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, being perverse.”
AOR Pulkit Agarwal represented the appellant.
The appellant had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the property asserting that he was the son of the respondent born out of the wedlock with his mother. The Trial Court decreed the suit, granting the appellant a 1/5th share in the property, which was subsequently upheld by the judgment of the First Appellate Court. However, the Bombay High Court reversed the decree and judgment respectively and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
The contention raised by the appellant was that the High Court should not have entered into the arena of re-appreciation of evidence led by the parties while hearing the second appeal.
The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment of the High Court needed no interference with since “there were large scale discrepancies in the evidence led.” It was explained that the marriage was sought to be established by the appellant only by leading oral evidence. Most importantly, the mother of the appellant was not even produced as a witness.
“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,” the Bench remarked.
The Court also pointed towards the heavy burden of proof on the appellant in a suit for partition and separate possession, especially when the factum of marriage was denied by the respondents. The appellant's failure to meet this burden led the Court to uphold the High Court's judgment, dismissing the suit as perverse and unsupported by credible evidence.
Consequently, the Bench stated, “For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar v. Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 498)
