MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus RAJNI KANT AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 13-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 30 
MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJNI KANT AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004) 
AUGUST 13, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - s.9A(2) -
Objections filed by respondents for inclusion of their names 
C 
in the disputed khata as the deceased Khatedar's heirs -
Appellants filed cross-objections contending that the mother 
of the respondents, at the most, could be concubine of the 
deceased Khatedar; and being illegitimate children, the 
respondents had no right to inherit any share in the disputed 
D khata - Statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act 
concurrently held in favour of the respondents and directed 
recording of their names - Order upheld by High Court - On 
appeal, held: The live-in-relationship between the deceased 
Khatedar and the mother of the respondents continued for a 
E 
long time, and thus there was a presumption of marriage 
.-.,between them which the appellants failed to rebut - Material 
placed on record by the appellants not enough to disbelieve 
the claim of the respondents and the findings of facts recorded 
by the courts below cannot be disturbed on that ground- The 
F '.'ifocuments placed by the appellants, if accepted, would simply 
lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but 
absurdity also -
No special facts and circumstances 
warranting further re-appreciation of the evidence by the 
Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
G 
H 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.32(5) and 35 - Entry in official 
record - Probative value of - Standard of proof required in 
such cases. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 114 - Legitimacy of children bom 
30 
( 
MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 
31 
AND ANR. 
to live-in partners - Held: The Jaw presumes in favour of A 
marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman 
have cohabited continuously for a number of years - However, 
such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable 
evidence. 
-
. 
-8 
'C', the ;father of the appellants, was the Khatedar of 
the Khata in question. After the death of his wife in 1945, 
'C' had live-in-relationship with one 'SH' which continued 
till his death in 1979. The respondents, who were 
purportedly born out of this relationship between 'C and C 
'SH', filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. 
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming that their 
names be included as the heirs of 'C'. The appellants filed _ 
cross-objections contending that the respondents ha"d. 
no right or interest in the disputed Khata. 
The Consolidation Officer i.e. the statutory authority 
under the Consolidation Act, allowed the objections filed 
D 
by the respondents and directed that their names be 
recorded. The order was upheld in appeal before the 
Settlement Officer as also in revision. The appellants E 
thereafter filed writ petition which was dismissed by the 
High_ Court. 
Aggrieved, the appellants contended before this 
Court that there was nothing on 
1record to show that their 
father had married 'SH' in accordance with law; that 'SH', 
F 
at the most, could be concubine of 'C'; and that being 
illegitimate children, the respondents had no right to 
inherit any share in the disputed khata. The appellants 
contended that the concurrent findings of facts recorded 
by the courts below were perverse and contrary to G 
documents on record placed by them, and therefore the 
Supreme Court ought to appreciate the evidence itself. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
HELD:1. The statutory authorities under the U.P. 
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 enjoy the powers of 
the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Court as all matters 
pending before the Civil Court stand abated once a 
notification of initiation of proceedings under the 
Consolidation Act is issued. The authorities under the 
Consolidation Act have been conferred powers of the 
Civil Court to adjudicate upon any matter of title or right 
to inherit the property etc. In the instant case, three 
authorities under the Consolidation Act recorded 
concurrent findings of facts after appreciating the entire 
evidence on record, which were affirmed by the High 
Court. [Paras 6, 7) [39-A-D; 40-B-C) 
2.1. In the instant case, the documents placed on 
record by the appellants are School Leaving Certificates, 
School Registers, Voter Lists and other documents 
prepared by the authorised persons

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