RANGANATH PARMESWAR PANDJTRAO MALI AND ANR. versus EKNATH GAJANAN KULKARNI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 12-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANGANATH PARMESWAR PANDJTRAO MALI AND ANR. 
v. 
EKNATH GAJANAN KULKARNI AND ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Co11.witution of India, 1950 : Article 136 
Appeal-Finding of fact-Non-consideration of vital evidenc~Such 
C 
a finding can be inteifered with. 
Law of inheritance: 
Factun1 of 1narriage-Proo.f o_f-Suit for injunction by 
legal 
heirs--Claim ,for property based on inheritance from ancestors-DiJpute as 
D 
to marriage of ancestors-Fact of living together as husband and w(f~Fact 
corroborated Dy admission-Held a presumption arises as to valid marriage 
unless rebutted-Legal heirs held entitled to succeed to property. 
E 
The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of injunction 
praying that the respondent-defendants be restrained from obstructing 
their peaceful possession to the suit properties. Their case was that they 
were sons of P who had married S and that they had inherited the suit 
property as a result of partition between P and the father of the 
defendants G. The respondents also filed a suit for injunction contending 
that the appellants were not the legal heirs of P as he died without 
F 
marrying anybody. 
G 
The Trial Court dismissed the respondent's suit and decreed the 
appellant's suit by granting the injunction prayed for. Its findings were 
that : (i) the appellants had proved that S was wife of P and this was 
corroborated from admission made by defendant No. 1 that S was living 
with P; and (ii) appellants being the only legal heirs of P were entitled 
to property which was in their continuous possession. 
The first appellate Court reversed the findings of the Tr,ial Court 
and held that (i) there was no evidence of marriage between P and S 
H 
though both were living together; and (ii) mere residing together as 
454 
\ 
..,. 
R.P.P. MALI v. E.G. KULKARNI 
455 
husband and wife does not give rise to the presumption that their 
A 
marriage was legal and valid; such a presumption would arise if there is 
evidence on record to prove the factum of marriage. In second appeal the 
High Court affirmed the conclusion of first appellate Court. Conse-
quently the appellants were held not entitled to the relief prayed for. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that both the appellate 
Conrts erred in not relying upon the presumption of ,valid marriage 
between P and S - a fact which was admitted by defendant. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the findings of 
B 
fact arrived. by two Courts below should not be interfered with under 
C 
Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is no doubt true that a finding arrived at on a question 
of fact by the lower appellate court or the High Court is not ordinarily 
D 
interfered with by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. But if 
such finding is recorded by non consideration of some vital piece of 
evidence or admission of the adversary, then this Court will be fully 
justified in interfering with the finding in question. [459-D-E] 
2. In this case the consistent evidence is that P and S were living 
together for long years as husband and wife and plaintiff No. 1 is their 
son. The defendant also admitted the aforesaid fact but contended that 
there had been no valid marriage between P and S. A legal presumption 
does arise, though the presumption is rebuttable and this presumption 
E 
has not been rebutted by the defendant. The High Court committed an 
F 
error of law in recording a finding that the presumption would arise only 
if the factum of marriage is proved. If factum of marriage is proved, the 
question of raising a presumption does not arise. The lower appellate 
court on the other hand has merely entered into the arena of conjecture 
and surmises by interfering with the finding of the Trial Judge without' G 
considering the relevant and material evidence on the point. The findings 
arrived at by both these courts on the question of relationship of ~ and 
S cannot be sustaiued in law. Appellants having been begotten by.,S from 
P, they are the legal heirs over the property of P and would succeed to 
the said property. [459-E-H; 460-A-C] 
H 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
S.P.S. Balasubrama11yam v. Surutayan, [1994] 1 SCC 460, referred to. 
B 
3. Instead of considering the evidence and the consequential finding 
of possession in favour of the appellants by the Trial Court the lower 
Appellate Court merely reverse

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