LexLUIS CAETANO VIEGAS versus ESTRELINA MARIANA R.M.A. DA COSTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. >
LUIS CAETANO VIEGAS
A
v.
ESTRELINA MARIANA R.M.A. DA 'COSTA AND ORS.
MAY 7,2002
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.]
B
Christian law-Baptism-legitimization-Proof-Birth certificate
indicating that baptism record was checked before god parents-Trial Court
upheld legitimization relying on baptism certificate-Appellate court rejected C
baptism certificate as it did not indicate presence of god parents and birth
certificate rejected since it proceeded on baptism certificate-On appeal-
Held, baptism certificate not liable to be discarded and can be held to be
made before godparents in view of birth certificate.
In the course of inventory proceedings filed by appellant for partition of D
inheritance of his grandmother (mother's mother), question arose as to whether
mother of appellant was legitimized by his grandmother .
In order to prove legitimization, appellant produced birth certificate of
his mother which was based on baptism certificate and the same indicated that
baptism record was checked before, godparents. The certificate was questioned E
on the ground that it did not contain mother's signature throwing doubt as to
whether she consented to the ceremony of legitimising her daughter.
Trial Court allowed the claim of the appellant relying on the baptism
certificate as the same recorded the name of the mother, grand parents and F
god parents, presuming the natural presence of mother at the time of baptism
as respondents had failed to bring any evidence to counter the natural
presumption.
In appeal, District Judge held that there is no legal recognition of
legitimacy by any proper deed as the baptism certificate could not be relied G
upon since it did not indicate as to whether both or either of the god parents
were present; that the birth certificate proceeds on the baptism certificate,
which was not valid.
Writ Petition against the order of the District Judge was dismissed by
849
11
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 3 S.C.R.
A High Court. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: If the birth certificate is a true reflection of the baptism record
and it contains the fact that it was read and checked before the godparents, the
B same need not be discarded and it must be held that the same had been made
in the presence of both godp;.rents. In the facts of the case, trial court was,
justified in the conch1s10n it '"!!ached and not the District Judge who proceeded
on misreading of the record. f853-D, El
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3476 of2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.2000 of the Mumbai High
Court in W.P. No. 308 of2000.
Prashant Kumar, Ms. Triveni Potekar and Chander Shekhar Ashri for
D the Appellant.
Ms. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and Ms. Anu Mehta for M/s. K.L.
Mehta and Co. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as
follows:
Rosa Fonseca had married Antonio D'Costa on 15.4.1889 and a male
child Jose Philipe was born to them. The said Antonio D'Costa died in 1892,
and almost seven years after his death, his wife Rosa Fonseca gave birth to
F a daughter in 1899. On 21.2.1903, the baby girl was baptised and named Maria
Da Graca Albertina Luiza Fonseca and the date and time of her birth were
recorded in the Parochial Book of Records of Baptism of the Taleigao Church.
The names of the maternal grandparents were mentioned and the godfather
and godmother also signed the register respectively. In 1933, the daughter
G Maria Fonseca married Camilo Viegas and in 1935 the appellant was born out
of this wedlock. Their marriage certificate dated 4.5.1933, stated that Maria
Fonseca was an illegitimate child and only mentioned the name of the mother.
In 1952, Rosa Fonseca, the grandmother and in 1967 Maria Fonseca, the
mother died.
H
In 1985, the appellant filed inventory proceedings for partition of
y
-
'-·
{
<
LUIS CAETANO VIEGAS 1• ESTRELINA MARIANA R.M A. DA 'COSTA[ RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 85}
inheritance of Rosa Fonseca and Antonio D'Costa in the Court of Civil Judge A
-~
[Senior Division]. The locus standi of the appellant was challenged by the
<:;abeca-de-Casal [Head of family] on the ground that the appellant is not an
heir of the deceased person Rosa Fonseca. The inventory proceedings were
restricted to the estate of Rosa Fonseca only making her the sole inventariado
)
l
in the matter.
B
The Trial Court deExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.