LexEARNEST JOHN WHITE versus MRS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958) 1958 title ~y a~verse possession. Intermittent working of Silmmatl the Illlfi:e m the m!lnner ~nd for the period described K"'"' Bat ab~ve is wholly u.1suffic1ent to establish possession v. which would constitute adverse possession or would sodila Rani Ghos• lead to an inference of adverse possession and we are and 011wr.r in agreement with the view expressed by the High Kap11r J. 1958 March 10 .. Court and would therefore dismiss these appeals with costs. . One set of costs between the two appeals except as to Court-fees. • Appeals dismissed . EARNEST JOHN WHITE v. MRS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE AND OTHERS (BHAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) Divorce-Adultery-Standard of proof-Principle-Direct evidence if imperative-Finding of fact when can be interferred with-Divorce Act (IV of 1869), u. 14 and 1. The appellant sued his wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. · On the evidence the trial coun found that it wa5 not possible to bold that adultery had been committed, though it found that one of the letters contained "a large substratum of truth". The High Coun in appeal concurred with the decision. On appeal to the Supreme Coun it was contended for the appellant that the finding of the courts below was vitiated because certain pieces of evidence had been Misread, and some others ignored. As a matter of legitimate and proper inference the Coun should not have arrived at any other conclusion, but that the wife was guilty of adultery with respondent No. 2. The evidence showed that the wife went to Patna and stayed in a hotel with respondent No. 2 under an assumed name, that they occupied the same room in the hotel, that the conduct of the respondent indicated a guilty inclina- tion, and that so far as the wife was concerned, her conduct wa! entirely consistent with her guilt: Held, that, the nature of the evidence adduced was such a.s would satisfy the requirements of s. 14 of the Divorce Act, and that the finding of the Couns below that an inference of adultery could not be drawn therefrom must. be set aside. Although it is not usual for the Supreme Coun to interfere S.C.R. SUPREME- COURT REPORTS 1411 on questions of fact, w~ere, howe~er, the. cou~ .below i~ore or 1958 misconstrue important pieces of evidence m arnving at therr find- ing and this Court is of the opinion that no tribunal could have Whit~- coiiie to such a find on the evidence taken as a whole, such v. finding was liable to be interferred with by this Court. Whitt Held, further, that the words "satisfied on the evidence" in s. 14 of the Divorce Act, 1869, imply that it is the duty of the Court to pronounce a decree only when it is satisfied that the case has been proved beyond reasonable <4>ubt as to the commission o[ a matrimonial offence. The evidence must be clear and satisfactory beyond mere balance of probabilities. It is not necessary and rarely possible. to prove the issue by any direct evidence. The rule laid down in Preston /ones v. Preston /ones, [1951] A.C. 391, lays down the principle that should be followed by the courts under s. 7 of the Divorce Act. State of Madras v. A. Vaidanatha Iyer, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 61, Purvez Ardeshir Poonawala v. The State of Bombay, Cr. A. 122 of 1954, decided on December 20, 1957, Stephen Seneviratne v. The King, A.I.R. 193~.C. 289, Mordaunt v. Moncrieffe, (1874) _30 I:.T. 649 and Gower v. Gower, [1950] 1 All. E.R. 804, referred._ to. Loveden v. Loveden, (1810) 161 E.R. 648; (1810) 2 Hag. Con. 1, 3, referred to. · Preston /ones v. Preston /ones, (1951] A.C. 391, relied upon. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1951, arising out of the judgment and decree dated May 15, 1951, of the said High Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 2of1950. M. C. SetQJvad, Attorney-General for India, N. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. Both the Courts below have failed to draw the proper inference of the commission of adultery, which should legitimately have been drawn from the facts proved. Both the Single Judge and the~ppeal Court failed to take into consideration some pieces of evidence and certain other dieces of evidence which were equally important ha been misread and misconstrued and as a matter of legitimate and proper i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.