Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Partition Suit: Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar vs. Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar (2024)

Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 498

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a plaintiff succeed in a partition suit merely based on oral evidence when claiming to be the son of the defendant, especially when the defendant denies the marriage of the plaintiff’s mother with him? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a partition suit. The court examined whether the High Court was justified in overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had initially favored the plaintiff. This case highlights the importance of substantial evidence in establishing familial relationships in property disputes. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The appellant, Ram @ Ramdas Sheshrao Neharkar, filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property. He claimed that his mother, Padminibai, was married to the respondent, Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar, and that he was born from that wedlock. At the time of filing the suit, the appellant was 35 years old. The suit also impleaded the alleged father, his wife, and two sons as defendants. The core of the dispute was whether the appellant could prove that Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar was indeed his father through a valid marriage with Padminibai.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, granting him a 1/5th share in the property, accepting that the marriage between Padminibai and Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar had taken place, and that the appellant was born from that wedlock. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court reversed these judgments, dismissing the suit. The High Court found that the lower courts had not adequately considered the discrepancies in the evidence presented by the appellant. The High Court noted that the appellant primarily relied on oral evidence and failed to produce key witnesses, such as his mother, Padminibai, to support his claim. The High Court also considered that the appellant had filed the suit 16-17 years after attaining majority and that Padminibai had remarried, which raised further questions about the validity of the alleged marriage with Sheshrao Baburao Neharkar.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the burden of proof in civil suits, particularly in cases involving claims of parentage and inheritance. The appellant was required to prove the marriage between his mother and the respondent and that he was born from that wedlock. The court examined the evidence presented and whether the appellant had successfully discharged this burden. The judgment underscores the importance of credible and substantial evidence, especially when the facts of the case are contested. The legal framework is based on the principles of evidence and the standard of proof required in civil cases.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence, as both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently found that the appellant had proven the marriage between his mother and the respondent, and that the appellant was born from that wedlock.
• The appellant contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts should not have been disturbed by the High Court in a second appeal.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the marriage between his mother and the respondent.
• The respondents highlighted that the appellant’s claim was primarily based on oral evidence, with no documentary evidence to support the claim of marriage.
• The respondents pointed out that the appellant’s mother, a crucial witness, was not produced to testify in court.
• The respondents also emphasized that the suit was filed after a significant delay of 16-17 years after the appellant had attained majority.
• The respondents noted that the appellant’s mother had remarried, suggesting that she was not in a continuous marital relationship with the respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The sub-issue was whether the appellant had successfully proven the marriage between his mother and the respondent, and that he was born from that wedlock, based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or books. The court’s reasoning is based on the assessment of evidence and the application of general principles of civil law regarding the burden of proof.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of substantial evidence presented by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant relied heavily on oral testimony and failed to produce key witnesses, such as his mother, Padminibai. The delay in filing the suit and the fact that Padminibai had remarried were also significant factors that weighed against the appellant’s claim. The Court emphasized that in a suit for partition and separate possession, where the factum of marriage is denied, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the marriage and parentage, which the appellant failed to do. The Court also noted the discrepancies in the evidence led by the appellant.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the lower courts were correct in their assessment of the evidence. However, the Court rejected this interpretation because the High Court rightly pointed out the discrepancies and the lack of substantial evidence. The Court also noted that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof required in such cases.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court found that the appellant had failed to prove that he was the son of the respondent, as the factum of marriage between his mother and the respondent was not established. The Court also considered the delay in filing the suit and the fact that the appellant’s mother had remarried. The Supreme Court stated that “From the evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff, he had failed to discharge that burden. The High Court had rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, being perverse.” The Court further stated, “In a suit filed for partition and separate possession claiming that the appellant/plaintiff was the son of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1, born from his marriage with Padminibai, very heavy burden was on the appellant/plaintiff to prove this fact, when the factum of marriage was denied by the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1.” The court also noted that “The marriage was sought to be established by the appellant/plaintiff only by leading oral evidence.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The two-judge bench unanimously agreed that the appellant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.

The judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence in establishing familial relationships in property disputes. The court’s reasoning is based on the assessment of evidence and the application of general principles of civil law regarding the burden of proof. The decision reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their claim, especially when the facts of the case are contested. The judgment clarifies that oral evidence alone is not sufficient to prove a claim when there is no corroborating evidence and when key witnesses are not produced.

Key Takeaways

• In partition suits, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their claim, especially when the facts of the case are contested.
• Oral evidence alone may not be sufficient to prove a claim, especially when key witnesses are not produced and there is no corroborating evidence.
• Delay in filing a suit can be a significant factor that weighs against the plaintiff’s claim.
• The courts will scrutinize the evidence presented and will not hesitate to reverse the findings of lower courts if they find that the evidence was not properly evaluated.
• The remarriage of a party can affect the claim of a continuous marital relationship.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s decision was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a suit for partition and separate possession, when the factum of marriage is denied, the plaintiff has a heavy burden to prove the marriage and parentage. The case reinforces the existing principles of evidence and burden of proof in civil cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case highlights the importance of substantial evidence and the scrutiny that courts will apply to such claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in establishing familial relationships in property disputes. The appellant failed to prove the marriage between his mother and the respondent and that he was born from that wedlock. The judgment underscores that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their claim, especially when the facts of the case are contested.