Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed a civil appeal challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that had decreed partition of ancestral properties. The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to their legitimate share in the family properties, affirming that the marriage of their mother with the deceased Dasabovi was validly established through oral testimony and corroborative evidence. The directives confirmed partition and rejected the appellants’ objections, thereby restoring the plaintiffs’ rights in the disputed properties.

The dispute originated from a family partition involving agricultural lands and a residential house in Devigere and Kallahally villages, Hosadurga Taluk. The plaintiffs claimed to be the sons of Dasabovi, born through his first wife, Bheemakka @ Sathyakka. The defendants, Chowdamma and her son, contended that Chowdamma was the sole legally wedded wife of Dasabovi, thereby excluding the plaintiffs from inheritance rights.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Double Standards | Parties Who Consented To Arbitration Estopped From Opposing Award On Ground Of Non-Arbitrability

The genealogical lineage traced back to Thimmabovi Vellappa, father of two sons—Dasabovi and Venkatappa. A partition during the lifetime of Thimmabovi resulted in certain properties devolving upon Dasabovi, including agricultural survey lands and a residential house. Subsequently, further acquisitions were also made in the family’s name, though one property was registered in the name of defendant Chowdamma. The plaintiffs alleged joint cultivation and enjoyment of these lands, asserting joint possession along with the defendants.

Following Dasabovi’s second marriage, the plaintiffs’ mother and her children were ousted from the matrimonial home, compelling them to live at Antharagange village. Despite this estrangement, the plaintiffs maintained that their father continued to visit them regularly and that they continued to participate in agricultural operations on the disputed lands. After the death of Dasabovi, the defendants allegedly manipulated revenue records in their favour by omitting the plaintiffs’ names. When demands for partition were denied, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition in O.S. No. 102/2001 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere.

The Trial Court, upon considering six issues framed in the suit, dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim on the grounds that they had failed to prove a valid marriage between their mother and the deceased. It accepted the defendants’ denial of any marital relationship and recognised the entries in revenue records favouring the defendants. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Regular First Appeal No.935/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka.

The High Court, after re-examining the evidence, notably the testimony of Hanumanthappa (P.W.2), reversed the Trial Court’s decree. It found that the oral testimony substantiated the plaintiffs’ claim of legitimacy and recorded that defendant No.1’s failure to testify further weakened the defence case. Consequently, the High Court decreed the partition suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The present civil appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the defendants challenging the High Court’s order.

The appellants contended that:

• The plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the properties and were residing elsewhere.

• Mere production of a genealogical chart was insufficient to prove marriage.

• Defendant No.1’s failure to testify was due to her medical condition, not deliberate avoidance.

• Revenue records conclusively recognised the defendants as legal heirs.

The respondents countered that:

• Oral testimony established the marriage of their mother with the deceased.

• Revenue records could not override personal testimony or confer title.

• Defendant No.1’s absence from the witness box amounted to deliberate evasion of judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court recorded that the central issue was whether the plaintiffs had successfully established the marital relationship between their mother and the deceased Dasabovi. It observed: “In the present case, there is a paucity of documentary and contemporaneous material to conclusively establish the marital relationship between the deceased Dasabovi and the mother of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the best possible evidence assumes crucial significance.”

Referring to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court explained: “Section 50 of the Evidence Act makes provision regarding ‘Opinion on relationship, when relevant.’ When 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, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.”

The Bench emphasised the significance of Hanumanthappa’s testimony: “P.W.2 (Hanumanthappa), aged 75 years, affirmed having personal knowledge of the relationship between the deceased Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother. He unequivocally stated that the deceased Dasabovi married the plaintiffs’ mother 57 years ago at Antharagange village in accordance with the prevailing customs.”

The Court held that his testimony reflected direct personal knowledge, not hearsay: “Such evidence, being rooted in personal knowledge, falls within the ambit of Section 50 of the Evidence Act.”

The Court also noted that the genealogical chart (Ex.P-7) corroborated oral testimony: “Though Ex.P-7, by itself, does not constitute conclusive proof, it operates as corroborative evidence and, when read along with the oral testimony of P.W.2, it supports the inference of a valid marital relation between the deceased Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother.”

On the presumption of marriage, the Court cited precedents including Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation: “A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin.”

Regarding the burden of proof, the Bench stated: “As it is seen that the plaintiffs have successfully discharged their burden of proof regarding the factum of marriage, the onus now shifts to the defendants to rebut the same.”

On revenue records, the Court recorded: “An entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records have only fiscal purpose, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.”

Also Read: Parole Leave Is A ‘Valuable Right’ Under Article 21, Police Cannot Rely On Mechanical Reports: Karnataka High Court

The Court criticised defendant No.1’s absence from the witness box: “The conspicuous silence of defendant No.1 strikes not merely as omission but as deliberate evasion. Defendant No.1, who lies at the heart of the controversy, chose not to step into the witness box.”

The Bench concluded: “In the absence of cogent medical evidence to support her alleged incapacity, her abstention from the witness box constitutes deliberate circumvention of the evidentiary burden resting upon her.”

Ultimately, the Court held: “When measured against the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the scales unambiguously tilt in favour of the plaintiffs.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 28.10.2010 in Regular First Appeal No.935 of 2005 did not suffer from infirmity. It declared: “It is our firm opinion the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant interference by this Court.”

Accordingly, the Bench directed: “Hence, the present Appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Ms. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate; Mr. S.J. Amith, Advocate; Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Advocate; Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondents: Mr. G.V. Chandrashekar, Senior Advocate; Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate; Ms. Apeksha D, Advocate; Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advocate-on-Record

Case Title: Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1038

Case Number: Civil Appeal No.11330 of 2011

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra