SHANTINATH RAMU DANOLE AND ANR. versus JAMBU RAMU DANOLE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 05-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SHANTINATH RAMU DANOLE AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
JAMBU RAMU DANOLE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
B 
Ancestral property -partition-Claim by plaintiffs as widow and 
legitimate son of deceased depending on proof of factum of marriage-For 
the purpose, Testimony of witnesses being friends and relatives, a relevant 
factor to be considered-Also evidence of a co-villager who has the means 
of special knowledge on the subject of that relationship is relevant. On C 
facts, factum of marriage proved and plaintiffs entitled to their share in the 
property. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
S.50 and 51-Factum of marriage-Proof of-Evidence of 
friends and co-villages, who have means of special knowledge-Held, is 
relevant. 
D 
A suit was filed by H and S for separate possession of their two-
third share in the suit property by partition. The suit property was E 
the ancestral property of R, and J, the Respondent-Defendant No.I 
was the son of R from his first wife. It was alleged by the plaintiffs 
that S was the legitimate son of R as R had married H after the death 
of his first wife butthat she was turned out of his house due to disputes 
between them and that at that time she was pregnant. On the other 
hand, the factum of marriage was denied by J and he claimed to be F 
the sole heir of his father's property. The fact of sale of land by J to 
Defendant No.2 for the purpose of repayment of debts of his father 
who had taken loan from the Bank, the Defendant No.3 was admitted 
by him. On evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the 
Trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. However the First G 
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court which was 
upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal by dismissing the same 
in limine. 
Allowing the appeal and restoring the Trial Court judgment 
with a slight modification, this Court 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The Testimony of Pws 1 and 2 corroboratir.g the 
fact that marriage had taken place between R and H has been rightly 
accepted by the Trial Court. [483-F] 
1.2. As a marriage is only attended by relatives and friends, the 
evidence of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the 
B ground that they are relatives and friends unless their testimony suffers 
from some inherent infirmity. [483 FG] 
2.1. Where the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship 
of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the 
existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of 
C knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. 
[484 E-F] 
D 
2.2. Evidence of PW. 3, a co-villager of the plaintiffs, which was 
based on his observations is relevant in view of Sections 50 and 51 of 
the Evidence Act. [483H, 484 DJ 
Dolgovinda v. Nimai Charan, AIR (1959) SC 914, relied on. 
3. The production of voters list and the eviden.ce of plaintiffs 
clearly established the fact that the deceased H and R were liv"ing as 
husband and wife raising a strong presumption that they were so 
E married. [485 B-D] 
F 
4.1. As was agreed to by Plaintiff No.I both S and J, would each 
be entitled to a half share in the suit property and S would be entitled 
for separation of his half share in property by partition. [485-FJ 
4.2. Both S and J would be liable proportionately for the 
repayment of debts due to the Bank, i.e. Respondent/Defendant No.3. 
[485 FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 
G 1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.81 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.A. No. 340 of 1981. 
V.N. Ganpule, Ms. Madhur Dadlani and Ms. VD. Khanna for the 
H Appellants. 
• 
S.R. DAN OLE v. J.R. DANO LE [FAJZAN UDDIN, J.] 
481 
M.S. Nargolkar and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. I. This appeal by the plaintiffs has 
been directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming 
A 
the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the B 
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court whereby the plaintiffs suit 
for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share was decreed. 
2. The appellant Shantinath Ramu Danole and his mother Housabai 
(since deceased) filed the suit against the defendant-respondent for separate 
possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit property by partition. The plaintiff C 
No. I Shantinath Ramu Danole claimed to be the son of de

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