KAREDLA PARTHASARADHI versus GANGULA RAMANAMMA (D) THROUGH L.RS & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 04-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2014] 13 S.C.R. 72 
KAREDLA PARTHASARADHI 
v. 
GANGULA RAMANAMMA (0) THROUGH L.RS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3872 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 04, 2014 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Presumption - Presumption as to legality of marriage 
- Original owner of suit property died intestate -Appellant, 
c brother of deceased claimed right over suit property and filed 
a suit for eviction against defendant no. 1 who was in 
possession of the suit property - Trial court rejecting the 
assertion of defendant no. 1 that she was married to the 
original owner passed decree for eviction against defendant 
o no. 1 - Defendant no. 1 filed appeal before High Court and 
died during pendency of appeal and respondent no. 1 filed 
application u/Or. 22 r.4, CPC on the ground that he is adopted 
son of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 had executed 
will in his favour bequeathing the suit house to him - High 
E Court allowed the application and permitted respondent no. 1 
to prosecute the appeal - Thereafter, High Court dismissed 
the suit holding that a presumption can be drawn that a woman 
is the wife of a man with whom she lived for a very long period 
and on account of their long association and defendant no. 1 
F can be recognised as his wife - Held: The impugned order 
of the High Court was based on proper appreciation of 
evidence and being just, legal and proper does not calf for 
any interference u/Article 136 of the Constitution- However, 
High Court while exercising its first appellate jurisdiction u/ 
G s.96 of the CPC had ample jurisdiction to appreciate the 
evidence independent to that of the appreciation done by 
the trial court and come to its own conclusion - High Court 
ought to have remanded the case to the trial court by taking 
H recourse to the provision of Order XX/I, Rule 5 proviso for 
72 
KAREDLAPARTHASARADHI v. GANG ULA RAMANAMMA 
73 
(D) THROUGH L.RS 
deciding the issue as to whether respondent no. 1 was the A 
legal representative of deceased defendant no. 1 and if so, 
whether in the capacity of adopted son or as legatee on the 
strength of Will - Retaining the session of the appeal,· the 
matter is remitted to trial court to decide the issue of status of 
respondent no. 1 and return the finding to the court- Code of B 
Civil Procedure. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973-, Order XVI r.25 r/w Order 
XX/I, r.5 proviso - Exercise of power under, scope -
Discussed. 
C 
While directing the trial court to return certain 
findings, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court held that a presumption 
can be drawn that a woman is the wife of a man with D 
whom she lived for a very long period and on account 
of their long association and she can be recognised as 
his wife. Various circumstances placed by the first 
defendant by way of oral and documentary evidence also 
indicate that she was recognised as the wife of the E 
deceased who was owner of the suit property, therefore, 
she can be treated as his wife. Though the plaintiff and 
the second defendant claimed that they are the brother 
and sister of the deceased, they severed connections 
with the deceased about four decades prior to the filing F 
of the suit and his whereabouts were also not known to 
those persons. There was no exchange of visits and 
they' never helped and financed the deceased either for 
the construction of the house or for any other purpose. G 
Since there is house in the name of the deceased, they 
entertained an Idea of claiming the same as legal heirs 
of the deceased. The impugned order of the High Court 
shows that it was based on proper appreciation of 
evidence and being just, legal and proper, it does not H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13.S.C.R. 
A call for any interference by this Court under Article 136 
of the Constitution. That apart, the High Court while 
exercising its first appellate jurisdiction under Section 
96 of the CPC had ample jurisdiction to appreciate the 
evidence independent to that of the appreciation done 
B by the trial court and come to its own conclusion. There 
is no ground to reverse the finding that defendant no.1 
was legally married wife of the deceased. [Paras 21, 22 
and 23](85-E; 89-F-H; 90-A-C; G-H; 91-A-C] 
c 
Thakur Goka/ Chand v. Parvin Kumari @ Usha 
Rani 1952 SC 231 : 1952 SCR 825; Madan 
Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr. (2010) 9 
sec 209: 2010 (10) SCR 30- relied on. 
0 
2. The question as to whether a particular person 
is a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or 
defe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.