CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER versus VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1532 · Decided: 25-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1532 : 2025 INSC 1038
Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another 
v. 
Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 11330 of 2011)
25 August 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the respondents succeeded in establishing a 
valid marital relationship between their mother and the deceased 
primarily on the basis of the oral testimony of P.W.2; and whether 
the relationship between the deceased and the respondents’ mother 
can be presumed to be a valid marital union, in the absence of 
formal documentary proof.
Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.50 – Proof of relationship – Presumption 
of marriage – Appellant no.1-second wife of deceased, exerted 
her influence, and got the names of herself and her children 
entered in the revenue records – On basis thereof, the 
appellants-second wife and her son declined to acknowledge 
the respondents-children of first wife of the deceased as 
being in joint possession of the suit schedule properties – 
Respondents sought partition of suit property – Appellant’s 
case that the appellant no.1 is the only wife of the deceased, 
and thus, the respondents have no right, title, or interest over 
the suit schedule properties; that they denied the marriage 
of the deceased with the respondent’s mother and claimed 
that they inherited the properties pursuant to a partition 
effected between the deceased and his brother – Trial Court 
dismissed the suit – High Court decreed the suit in favour 
of the respondents relying on the evidence of P.W.2 which 
established the relationship of the respondents’ mother with 
the deceased – Correctness:
Held: Testimony of P.W.2 being that of a person residing in the 
same village and having a long-standing familiarity with both the 
respondents and the appellants, coupled with his awareness of the 
events pertaining to the relationship between the deceased and the 
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
1533
Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another v.  
Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another
respondents’ mother, cannot be dismissed as mere hearsay – On 
the contrary, it reflects a narration of events personally witnessed 
or known to him directly – Such evidence, being rooted in personal 
knowledge, falls within the ambit of s.50 – Thus, in the absence 
of contemporaneous documentary evidence, the evidence of 
P.W.2 assumes evidentiary significance in establishing the nature 
of the relationship between the deceased and the respondents’ 
mother – His evidence is consistent with s.50 and is being rooted 
in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance with 
both the respondents and appellants – P.W.2’s testimony was 
unimpeached in the cross-examination and warrants an inference 
in favour of the subsistence of a valid marital relationship between 
the deceased and the respondent’s mother – Though genealogical 
tree, by itself, does not constitute conclusive proof, it operates 
as corroborative evidence and, when read along with the oral 
testimony of P.W.2, it supports the inference of a valid marital 
relation between the deceased and the respondents’ mother – As 
regards the presumption of marriage, plaintiffs have discharged 
the burden of proof placed upon them – They have sufficiently 
established that the deceased lived with their mother, as husband 
and wife – Appellants failed to discharge their onus to disprove 
the factum of a valid marriage between the respondents’ mother 
and the deceased – Furthermore, reliance on the revenue records 
is of no avail, as such records only hold presumptive value and 
don’t confer title – Appellant no.1, though physically present in the 
court during the trial, abstained from stepping into the witness box 
to rebut the respondents’ assertions as also wilfully bypassed the 
statutory remedy available to those pleading physical incapacity – 
In the absence of cogent medical evidence to support her alleged 
incapacity, her abstention from the witness box constitutes 
deliberate circumvention of the evidentiary burden resting upon 
her – Adverse presumption u/s.114(g) of the Evidence Act is 
inevitable – Court of law cannot offer refuge to studied silence where 
a duty to disclose exists – Respondents anchored their claim in 
measured and unwavering testimony of P.W.2, an account rooted in 
personal knowledge and long-standing familiarity, which withstood 
the rigours of cross-examination – His evidence, unshaken and 
consistent, found further corroboration in the gene

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.