KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & ANR. versus KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 13-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1120
1120
KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & ANR.
v.
KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6406-6407 of 2010)
JUNE 13, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND VIKRAM NATH JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114 – Share in coparcenary property
– Partition suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs claiming half share in
the coparcenary property – Respondents-defendents challenged the
marriage of the first plaintiff’s parents i.e. ‘D’ and ‘C’ and also
contended that plaintiff no.1 is not the son born out of the said
wedlock – Trial Court upheld the validity of marriage of first
plaintiff’s parents and held that plaintiff no.1 is son born out of
said wedlock and passed preliminary decree for partition of the
suit property – Appeal filed by respondent before High Court –
High Court held that plaintiff no.1 is son of ‘D’ but not a legitimate
one and thereby denied partition of the property – Before the
Supreme Court, appellants contended that as per s. 114 IEA, long
course of living together between a male and female will raise a
rebuttable presumption of marriage between them and the children
born in such relationship are considered to be legitimate children –
Held: From the documents on record coupled with the evidence of
PW-2, would show that there was long duration of cohabitation
between parents of plaintiff no. 1 – Though the presumption of s.114
IEA is rebuttable, heavy burden lies on him who seeks to rebut the
presumption – The respondents have failed to rebut the presumption
of marriage raised as per s. 114 IEA – Therefore the judgment of
the trial Court is upheld – As far as issue of delay in initiating final
decree proceedings u/Or. XX, r.18 of the CPC is concerned, the
trial Courts directed to list the matter for taking steps u/Or. XX Rule
18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for
partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and
without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings – Code of
Civil Procedure,1908 – Or. XX, r. 18.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
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. [Para 15][1126-E]
2. The plaintiffs have produced the birth certificate of the
first plaintiff as Ex.A-9. As per this document, the date of birth of
the first plaintiff is shown as 12.05.1942. K.E. ‘D’ and ‘C’ are
described as father and mother. [Para 23][1128-C]
3. There are also enough materials on record to show that
‘C’ was getting some money from the family of ‘D’, including in
particular the letters at Exs.A22 and A23, which were addressed
to the first plaintiff by his mother ‘C’ long back in the year 1976.
[Para 25][1129-C-D]
4. The first plaintiff was born on 12.05.1942 as is evident
from Ext.A9. The documents produced by the plaintiffs were in
existence long before the controversy arose between the parties.
These documents, coupled with the evidence of PW-2, would
show the long duration of cohabitation between ‘D’ and ‘C’ as
husband and wife. The first plaintiff joined military service in the
year 1963 and retired in the year 1979. Thereafter he has taken
the steps to file a suit for partition of the suit schedule property.
[Para 26][1130-B-D]
5. This Court also perused the evidence of the defendants.
This Court is of the view that the defendants have failed to rebut
the presumption in favour of a marriage between ‘D’ and ‘C’ on
account of their long co-habitation. [Para 27][1130-D-E]
6. Once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court,
the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final
decree suo motu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the
Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order
XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The courts should not adjourn the matter
sine die, as has been done in the instant case. There is also no
need to file a separate final decree proceedings. In the same
suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an
appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless
to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is
drawn. [Para 33][1135-A-C]
KATTUKANDI EDATH

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