Supreme Court of India
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEPversusSANJEEV KUMAR & ORS
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 504
- Decided
- 15 April 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed that the will is valid, a male Hindu of the Mitakshara school may bequeath ancestral property by will, the legitimacy presumption under s.112 stands, the school leaving certificate is admissible, and the suit is time‑barred.
Summary
Shyam Lal (plaintiff) sued Sanjeev Kumar and others to declare that a mutation in favour of the defendants, who were grandsons of the deceased BR, was illegal because the land was ancestral property that could not be bequeathed by will. The defendants produced a registered will dated 4‑12‑1978 in favour of them and claimed the plaintiff and another defendant were illegitimate children of BR. The trial court upheld the will and dismissed the suit; the District Judge partially reversed, holding the land ancestral to the extent of BR's share and recognizing the plaintiff as BR's son; the High Court set aside those findings and allowed the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts' factual findings on the will's execution could not be disturbed, that under s.30 read with s.4 of the Hindu Succession Act a male Hindu of the Mitakshara school may make a will of ancestral property, that the presumption of legitimacy under s.112 of the Evidence Act stands as the defendants failed to prove non‑access, that the school leaving certificate is admissible as a public document under s.74, and that the suit was barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a male Hindu governed by the Mitakshara system can execute a will of ancestral/coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Whether the will dated 4‑12‑1978 was validly executed and thus the mutation is lawful.
- Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the plaintiff and defendant No.4, and whether it can be rebutted.
- Whether the school leaving certificate is admissible as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the suit is barred by the limitation period.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 30, s. 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 112, s. 50, s. 60, s. 74
Subjects
Hindu Succession ActWillAncestral propertyMitaksharaEvidence ActLegitimacy presumptionLimitationMutationPublic documentCivil appeal
Judgment
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1049
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP A
v.
SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2888 of 2001)
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956:
s.30 rlw s.4 - Will in respect of ancestral property- Held: c
There being concurrent findings of courts below that the will
had validly been executed, and the findings being purely on
a question of fact, i.e., with regard to execution of will, High
Court rightly held that such findings could not be interfered
) with in second appeal - In view of s.30 rlw s.4, a male Hindu 0
governed by Mitakshara system is not debarred from making
a will in respect of ancestral property - Besides, considering
as a whole, as set out in the plaint, suit was not within time -
Limitation.
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: E
s. 112 - Birth during marriage - Conclusive proof of
legitimacy- Held: In absence of cogent and reliable evidence
as to non-access of parents of a child to each other
presumption u/s 112 would be available - Onus to rebut the F
presumption was on defendants and they failed to discharge
the same.
s. 74 - Public document - School Leaving Certificate -
Showing the parentage of child - Admitting of without format
proof not questioned by defendant in relevant court - Held: c
I -.\
Defendant cannot raise the issue in appeal before Supreme
Court.
1049
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.
A MAXIM:
'Odiosa et inkonesta non sunt in lege prae sumenda' -
Applicability of
The appellant filed a suit for declaration that mutation
8 of the suit land in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who were
the grandsons of 'BR', was illegal and null and void. It was
claimed that the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 were
sons of 'BR' and they comprised Hindu Undivided
Family with him; that defendants 5 and 6 were BR's
C daughters; that the suit land was inherited by 'BR' from
his father and, as such, the same was ancestral property
in his hands and, therefore, after the death of 'BR', the
property could not have been mutated in favour of
defendants 1 and 2; that no Will was executed by 'BR' in
D his life time, and if there was any Will, the same was a
forged and fabricated one. The stand of the defendants,
on the other hand, was that 'BR' executed a registered
Will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in a sound disposing
mind; and that the wife of 'BR' had deserted him during
E his life time and started living with another person
through whom the plaintiff and defendant No.4 were
born. The trial court relying upon the Will held the
mutation operative against the plaintiff and dismissed the
suit. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal of
F the plaintiff holding that the suit land in the hands of 'BR'
was ancestral property to the extent of his share in the
coparcenary property. The High Court having dismissed
plaintiff's second appeal, he filed the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD:1. So far as genuineness of the Will is
concerned, the two courts below have concurrently held ~ 1-
the Will Ex.OW 11A to have been validly executed by
deceased 'BR' in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2. Such
H concurrent findings being purely on a question of fact,
SHYAM LAL@ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1051
ORS.
that is, with regard to execution of the Will, as has been A
rightly held by the High Court, cannot be interfered with
in the second appeal. [Para 28] (1065-F-G]
2.There is no denying that the property in the hands
of the deceased was ancestral since admittedly he had B
inherited the same from his father. [Para 29) [1065-G-H]
3. In so far as the question whether under the custom
governing the parties, a Will could be executed in respect
of ancestral property is concerned, the same is no more
res integra. In view of s.30 read with s.4 of the Hindu c
Succession Act, 1956, a male Hindu governed by
Mitakshara system is not debarred from making a Will in
respect of coparcenary/ancestral property. In this view of
the matter, the District Judge has erred in upholding the
validity of the Will Ext. OW 1/A only to the extent of the D
)
interest of the deceased in the property. Such findings are
wrong and liable to be set aside. [Paras 30 and 32] [1066-
A-D]
Tek Chand and Another v. Moo/ Raj and Others 1997 (2)
E
Hindu L.R. 306 and Kartari Devi and Ors. v. Tota Ram 1992
(1) Sim. L.C. 4021, relied on.
Perumal Nadar (dead) by Legal Representative v.
Ponnuswami Nadar (minor) AIR 1971 SC 2352; Badri Prasad
> v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others AIR 1978 SC F
1557 : (1978) 3 SCC 537; Gautam Kundu v. State of WB. &
Another, AIR 1993 SC 2295; Raghunath Parmeshwar
Panditrao Mali and Another v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni and
Another, (1996) 7 SCC 681 and S.P.S. Balasubramaniyam
v. Suruttayan alias Andalipadayachi & Others, 1994 (1) SCC G
460, referred to.
4.1. With regard to the parentage of the plaintiff-
appellant and respondent No.4, the High Court observed
that admittedly they were born to their mother during the
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A continuance of her marriage with 'BR'. Therefore, in the
absence of cogent and reliable evidence as to non-
access on the part of the 'BR', presumption u/s 112 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 would be available and it will have to
be held that plaintiff and defendants are sons of
B deceased 'BR'. The findings of the High Court on the
interpretation of s.112 of the Evidence Act are based on
correct analysis of decisions both Indian and English.
According to the legislative intention and spirit behind
s.112 of Evidence Act it is abundantly clear that once the
c validity of marriage is proved then there is strong
presumption about the legitimacy of children born out of
that wedlock. The presumption can only be rebutted by
a strong, clear satisfying and conclusive evidence. The
presumption cannot be displaced by mere balance of
probabilities or any circumstance creating doubt. [Para
D
21 and 39) [1063-E-G; 1068-C-E]
Chi/ukuri Venkateswar/u v. Chilukuri Venkatanarayana
AIR 1954 SC 1761 and Smt. Kanta Devi and Another v. Poshi
Ram AIR 2001 SC 2226, relied on.
E
Bhima v. Dhulappa (1904) 7 Bombay Law Reports 95;
Hardan Singh v. Mukhtar Singh & Anr. 1947 All LJ 569 and
Lal Haribansha v. Nikunja Behari, ILR 1960 Cuttack 230,
referred to.
F Nga Tun Ev. Mi Chon A.l.R. 1914 Upper Burma 36; R
v. Mljlnsfield, 1941, 1 QB 444, 450 and Ma Wun Di and
Another v. Ma Kin and Others XXXV IA 41, referred to.
4.2. On the ground of public policy, it is undesirable
G to enquire into the paternity of a child whose parents
"ilave access" to each other. The presumption of
legitimacy arises from birth in wedlock and not from
conception. It is well settled principle that nothing odious •
or dishonourable will be presumed by the law (Odiosa et
H
-i SHYAM LAL@ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1053
ORS.
inkonesta non sunt in lege prace sumenda). The law A
presumes against vice and immorality. In a civilized
society it is imperative to presume legitimacy of a child
born during continuation of a valid marriage and whose
parents had "access" to each other. Section 112 of the
Evidence Act is based on presumption of public morality B
and public policy. [Para 22, 41 and 42) [1063-G-H; 1064-
A; 1068-G-H; 1069-A-B]
4.3. The High Court also observed that since the onus
to rebut the presumption was on the defendants, it was
for them to prove that the plaintiff and defendant no.4
c
were not the sons of 'BR'. Sections 50 and 60 of the
Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service by the
defendants to contend that the plaintiff has failed to prove
his relationship with 'BR'. [Para 23) [1064-A-B]
D
4.4. One of the documents relied upon by the District
Judge in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the
son of 'BR' is ExtP.2, the School Leaving Certificate. The
findings of the District Judge holding Ext.P.2 to be a
public document and admitting the same without formal E
proof cannot be questioned by the defendants in the
appeal before this Court since no objection was raised
by them when such document was tendered and
received in evidence. Even if Ext.P .2 is excluded from
>
consideration, the defendants have not been able to rebut F
the presumption available u/s 112 of the Evidence Act.
[Para 24,25 and 26) [1064-C-D; 1064-E-F; 1065-A]
Dasondha Singh and Others v. la/am Singh and Others
1997(1) P.L.R. 735, relied on.
G
5.1. As regards the limitation, the High Court
observed that the trial court while recording the findings
under issue no.8 has held the suit to be not within time.
No findings have been recorded by the District Judge on
the question of limitation. Considering the pleadings as H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A a whole, as set out in the plaint, the suit of the plaintiff as
laid, on the face of it, was not within time. There were
neither pleadings nor evidence as to the date on which
the plaintiff had derived the knowledge about the
mutation and/or the Will. [Para 37] [1067-G-H; 1068-A-B]
B
5.2. Both the trial court and the District Judge did not
deal with this aspect of limitation in a proper perspective.
The High Court has given correct findings regarding
limitation. [Para 38] [1068-B]
c 6. A careful and critical examination of the findings
of the High Court on the issues of Will and consequent
mutation, indicates that the said findings are based on
correct evaluation of evidence and record of the case,
and no interference is called for. [Para 38 and 43] [1068-
D B-C; 1069-B-C]
Case Law Reference:
A.l.R. 1914 Upper Burma 36 referred to Para 10
E (1904) 7 Bombay Law
Reports 95 referred to Para 11
1941, 1 QB 444, 450 referred to Para 12
1947 All LJ 569 referred to Para 13
F
ILR 1960 Cuttack 230 referred to Para 14
XX.XV IA 41 referred to Para 14
AIR 1954 SC 1761 relied on Para 15
G AIR 1971 SC 2352 referred to Para 16
AIR 1978 SC 1557 :
(1978) 3 sec 537 referred to Para 17
H
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1055
ORS.
AIR 1993 SC 2295 referred to Para 18 A
(1996) 1 sec 681 referred to Para 19
1994 (1) sec 460 referred to Para 19
AIR 2001 SC 2226 relied on Para 20 B
1997(1) P.L.R. 735 relied on Para 25
1992 (1) Sim. L.C. 4021 relied on Para 30
1997 (2) Hindu L.R. 306 relied on Para 31
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2888 of 2001.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2000 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in R.S.A. No. 10 of 1998.
D
Vivek S. Attri and Anshu Attri (for Krishna Pal Singh), for
the Appellant.
Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh, Sumit Sharma (for G.K.
Bansal), for the Res,<>ondents.
...
~1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
E
against the judgment dated 21.09.2000 of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shim la in Regular Second Appeal No.10 F
of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the
respondents and set aside the judgment and decree passed
by the learned District Judge, Solan.
2. The appellant herein, who was the plaintiff before the
G
Trial Court, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation
number 1313 dated 20.2.1988 in favour of defendant nos.1 and
t
2 was illegal, null and void. The plaintiff and defendant nos.3
and 4 are the sons and defendant nos.5 and 6~are the
daughters of late Shri Balak Ram. They were joint owners and
in possession of the estate of the deceased Balak Ram in H
1056 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A equal shares. Balak Ram died on 31.10.1987. After his death,
his estate came to be mutated in favour of his grandsons,
defendant nos.1 and 2, on the basis of a Will executed on
4.12.1978, vide mutation number 1313 dated 20.02.1988.
B 3. According to the plaintiff, the estate was inherited by the
deceased Balak Ram from his father Mohar Singh and as such
the same was ancestral in his hands. It is further alleged by the
plaintiff that the deceased Balak Ram's Hindu Undivided Family
(HUF) consisted of himself, the plaintiff and the defendants.
Late Balak Ram was governed by the Hindu Law and Customs
C in the matter of alienation and succession whereby he could
not bequeath the ancestral property. It was further pleaded that
no Will was executed by the deceased Balak Ram during his
lifetime. The Will, if any, was forged and fabricated and
ultimately the mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 20.2.1988
D was illegal, null and void.
4. The respondents herein, who were defendants in the
Trial Court, while resisting the suit admitted that the deceased
Balak Ram had inherited the property from his father Mohar
E Singh: They, however, denied that such property was ancestral
in the· hands of the deceased. They also denied that the
deceased was governed by the customs in the matter of ._,
alienation and succession. They pleaded that the deceased
Balak Ram on 4.12.1978 was in a sound disposing mind when
F he had executed a valid Will in favour of defendant nos.1 and
2. The Will was registered on 23.12.1987 in the office of Sub-
Registrar.
5. It was also submitted that Smt. Durgi, wife of deceased
Balak Ram, had deserted her husband during her lifetime while
G . he was in service at Chandigarh. She developed illicit relations
with one Mehar Singh. The plaintiff and Phanki Ram, defendant
no.4 were born to Smt. Durgi from the loins of the said Mehar t
Singh. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-
H "1. Whether the mutation no.1313 dated 20.2.88 is
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1057
~ ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
illegal, null and void and not operative against the A
plaintiff as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant nos.3 and 6 are
joint owners in possession of the suit land as
alleged? OPP B
3. Whether there is a validly executed will in favour of
•' defendant nos.1 and 2 as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit?OPD c
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?
OPD
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose
of court fee and jurisdiction. OPD D
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the
. present suit as alleged. OPD
8. Whether the suit is within time?OPD
E
9. Whether the suit is bad for want of better
particulars, as alleged? OPD
10. Whether the alleged will in favour of defendants 1
and 2 is the result of fraud etc. as alleged?"OPP F
>
6. The Trial Court decided issues nos.1, 2 and 10 against
the plaintiff and issues no.3, 7 and 9 against the defendants.
_,
Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiff was
dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.8.1996.
G
7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said judgment filed an
appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan who partly
;
- allowed the said appeal on 11.9.1997. The plaintiff and
defendant no.4 were held to be the sons of deceased Balak
Ram. The property in the hands of deceased Balak Ram was H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
•
A held to be ancestral to the extent of his share in the /
coparcenary property.
8. Defendant nos.1 to 3 and 6, aggrieved by the said
judgment of the District Judge, Solan filed a second appeal
before the High Court on the following substantial questions of
B
law:
1. Whether the relationship, particularly regarding t
parentage, is required to be proved strictly in
consonance with the provisions of Section 50 and
c 60 of the Indian Evidence Act? Can the evidence
of persons who having no special means of
knowledge of such relationship be held to be
admissible and are not the findings of the lower
appellate court unsustainable which are based on
D such inadmissible evidence?
2. When it was duly established that Smt. Durgi had
illicit relationship with Mehar Singh in whose
company she had begotten the plaintiff and
defendant no.4, could the learned lower appellate
E
court raise the presumption as envisaged under
Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act relating
parentage to Shri Balak Ram deceased from
whom she severed all the relationship, merely on
the ground that there was no legal divorce between
F Smt. Durga Devi and Shri Balak Ram?
3. Whether Ext. P-2 was inadmissible in evidence
having not been proved in accordance with law and
findings based on the same are illegal and
G unsustainable?
4. When the learned lower Appellate Court has held t
H
the custom to have been abrogated on account of
the provisions of Sections 4 and 30 of the Hindu
Succession Act, was not the will executed by Shri
-
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1059
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.}
Balak Ram in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 valid A
for the entire property when its due execution and
validity has been upheld?
5. Whether the findings of the learned lower Appellate
Court are incorrect to hold the property firstly to be
8
Joint Hindu Family property, secondly ancestral
property and thereby restricting the validity of the
will executed by Shri Balak Ram qua his
coparcenary interest in the property without holding
that there existed a coparcenary amongst the
parties to the suit and ascertaining the interest of C
Shri Balak Ram therein?
9. The High Court after hearing learned counsel for the
parties answered questions nos.1 and 2 as follows:-
D
"The learned District Judge in coming to the conclusion
that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are the sons of the
deceased Balak Ram, has relied upon the presumption
under Section 112, Evidence Act, 1872, which reads:-
"112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof E
of legitimacy. - The fact that any person who was
born during the continuance of a valid marriage
between his mother and any man, or within two
hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the
mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive F
proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless
it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had
no access to each other at any time when he could
have been begotten."
G
The rule, contained in the above Section, that
continuance of a valid marriage will prevent an inference
being drawn to the effect that the children born to a woman
during the continuance of the valid marriage were born to
another person as a result of adulterous intercourse is only H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A a rule of evidence. The presumption which Section 112,
Evidence Act, 1872, contemplates , is a conclusive
presumption of law which can be displaced only by proof
of the particular fact mentioned in the Section, namely,
non-access between the parties to the marriage at a time
B when according to the ordinary course of nature, the
husband could have been the father of the child."
10. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is based on
English law. Section 112 reproduces rule of English law that it
C is undesirable to inquire into paternity of child when mother is
married woman and husband had access to her. Adultery on
her part will not justify finding of illegitimacy if husband has had
access. [See: Nga Tun Ev. Mi Chon A.l.R. 1914 Upper Burma
36].
D 11 . More than a century ago in Bhima v. Dhulappa (1904)
7 Bombay Law Reports 95, the Court aptly observed that
section 112 of ·the Evidence Act is based on the principle that
when a particular relationship, such as marriage, is shown to
exist, then its continuance must prima facie be preserved.
E
12. The fact that a woman is living in notorious adultery,
though of course it amounts to very strong evidence, is not, in
itself quite sufficient to repel this presumption [See: R v.
Mansfield, 1941, 1 QB 444, 450].
F 13. In 1947 All LJ 569 at page 572 Hardan Singh v.
Mukhtar Singh & Anr. , the Allahabad High Court observed:
"The mere fact that a woman is immoral or is living in a
house separate from that of her husband is having
G relations with other men is not sufficient to rebut the
conclusive presumption of legitimacy which is raised by
section 112 of the Evidence Act, unless it is proved that
the husband and wife had no access to each other during
the period indicated in the section."
H 14. In Lal Haribansha v. Nikunja Behari, ILR 1960 Cuttww
SHYAM LAL@ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1061
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
230, relying on Ma Wun Di and Another v. Ma Kin and Others A
XXXV IA 41, the Court stated that:
"It is the principle of law that "Odiosa et inkonesta non sunt
in lege prae sumenda" (Nothing odious or dishonourable
will be presumed by the law). So the law presumes against 8
vice and immorality. One of the strongest illustrations of the
principle, is the presumption in favour of legitimacy of
children in a civilized society. But, where illegitimacy seems
as common as marriage and legitimacy, a presumption of
legitimacy cannot be drawn and legitimacy or illegitimacy C
will have to be proved like any other fact in issue. 11
15. The High Court placed reliance on a judgment of this
court in Chi/ukuri Venkateswarlu v. Chilukuri Venkatanarayana
AIR 1954 SC 1761 as under:-
D
"It may be stated at the outset that the presumption which
section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates is a
conclusive presumption of law which can be displaced
only by proof of the particular fact mentioned in the section,
namely, non-access between the parties to the marriage E .
at a time when according to the ordinary course of nature
the husband could have been the father of the child.
Access .and non-access again connote, as has been held
by the Privy Council (Vide Karapaya v. Mayandy, AIR
1934 PC 49(A), existence and non- existence of F
opportunities for material intercourse. It is conceded by Mr.
Somayya, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff appellant,
that non-access could be established not merely by
positive or direct evidence; it can be proved undoubtedly
like any other physical fact by evidence, either direct or G
circumstantial, which is relevant to the issue under the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, though as the
presumption of legitimacy is high favored by law it is
necessary that proof of non-access must be clear and
satisfactory......."
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A 16. Reliance has also been placed in Perumal Nadar
(dead) by Legal Representative v. Ponnuswami Nadar (minor)
AIR 1971 SC 2352 where the parties, i.e., the husband and wife
. were living separately long before the birth of the child. It was
held that unless the husband is able to establish absence of
B access, presumption raised under section 112 of the Indian
Evidence Act will not be displaced. The proof of non-access
must be clear and satisfactory.
17. In Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
& Others AIR 1978 SC 1557: (1978) 3 SCC 537, it has been
C laid down that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock
where the partners have lived together for a long spell as
husband and wife. If man and woman who live as husband and
wife in society are compelled to prove, half a cer\tury later, by
eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few will
D succeed.
18. In Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. & Another, AIR
1993 SC 2295, this Court summarized the law as under:
"(1) That courts in India cannot order blood test as a
E
matter of course;
(2) Wherever applications are made for such prayers
in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood
test cannot be entertained.
F
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the
husband must establish non-access in order to
dispel the presumption arising under Section 112
of the Evidence Act.
G (4) The court must carefully examine as to what would be
the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether
it will have the effect of branding a child as a
bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.
•.
H (5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for...
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1063
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
analysis." A
19. In Raghunath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali and
Another v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni and Another, (1996) 7
sec 681 it was observed that if a man and woman have lived
together for long years as husband and wife and a son having B
been born to them, legal presumption would arise regarding
valid marriage, though such a presumption is rebuttable
similarly in S.P.S. Balasubramaniyam v. Suruttayan alias
Andalipadayachi & Others, 1994 (1) SCC 460 it was observed
by this court that if a man and woman live together for long
years as husband and wife then a legal presumption arises as c
to the legality of marriage existing between the two, but such a
presumption is rebuttable.
:~ 20. In Smt. Kanta Devi and Another v. Poshi Ram AIR
2001 SC 2226, this Court held as under: D
"Section 112 which raises a conclusive presumption
about the paternity of the child born during the subsistence
of a valid marriage, itself provides an outlet to the party
who wants to escap~ from the rigour of that conclusiveness.
E
The said outlet is, if it can be shown that the parties had
no access to each other at the time when the child could
have been begotten the presumption could be rebutted. 0
21. In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that
in the present case admittedly the plaintiff and defendant no.4 F
were born to Smt. Durgi during the continuance of her marriage
with the deceased Balak Ram. Therefore, in the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence as to non-access on the part of
the deceased Balak Ram, presumption under Section 112 of
the Indian Evidence Act would ~ available and it will have to G
be held that plaintiff and defendants are sons of deceased
Balak Ram.
22. On ground of public policy, it is undesirable to enquire
into the paternity of a child whose parents "have access" to each
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009} 5 S.C.R.
A other. The presumption of legitimacy arises from birth in
wedlock and not from conception.
23. The High Court also observed that since the onus to
rebut the presumption was on the defendants, it was for them
to prove that the plaintiff and defendant no.4 are not the sons
8
of the deceased. Sections 50 and 60 of the Indian Evidence
Act cannot be pressed into service by the defendants to
contend that the plaintiff has failed to prove his relationship with
the deceased Balak Ram.
C Question No.3
24. One of the documents relied upon by the learned
District Judge in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is
the son of the deceased Balak Ram is Ex. P.2, the School
0 Leaving Certificate. The learned District Judge, while dealing
with this documents has observed:
"on the other hand, there is a public document in the shape
of school leaving certificate Ex.P.2 issued by Head Master,
Government Primary School, Jabal Jamrot recording
E Kuldip Chand alias Sham Lal to be the son of Shri Balak
Ram. In the said public document as such Kuldip Chand
alias Sham Lal was recorded son of Shri Balak Ram."
25. The findings of the learned District Judge holding
F Ex.P.2 to be a public document and admitting the same without
formal proof cannot be questioned by the defendants in the
present appeal since no objection was raised by them when
such document was tendered and received in evidence. It has
been held in Dasondha Singh and Others v. Zalam Singh and
G Others [1997(1) P.L.R. 735} that an objection as to the
admissibility and mode of proof of a document must be taken
at the trial before it is received in evidence and marked as an
exhibit. Even otherwise such a document falls within the ambit
of Section 74, Evidence Act, and is admissible per se without
H formal proof.
SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1065
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
26. Even if such document is excluded from consideration, A
the defendants, as held under questions no.1 and 2 above, have
not been able to rebut the presumption available under Section
112, Evidence Act.
Question No.5 B
27. The High Court, regarding question no.5, in the
impugned judgment observed as under:-
"The learned District Judge has held the property in the
hands of the deceased Balak Ram to be coparcenary C
property. Be it stated that such findings cannot be
sustained. The plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that the
property in the hands of his father the deceased Balak Ram
was a coparcenary property. His pure and simple case,
as set out in the plaint, is that the property in the hands of o
the deceased was ancestral and under the custom
governing the parties such ancestral property could not be
bequeathed by way of a will. By holding the property in the
hands of the deceased Balak Ram to be coparcenary
property, the learned District Judge has in fact made out E
a new case for the plaintiff. On this short ground alone, the
findings of the learned District Judge deserve to be set
aside."
Question No.4
F
28. The two courts below have concurrently held the Will
Ex. OW 1/A to have been validly executed by the deceased
Balak Ram in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2. Such concurrent
findings being purely on a question of fact, that is, with regard
to execution of the Will, cannot be interfered within the present G
Second Appeal.
29. There is no denying that the property in the hands of
the deceased Balak Ram was ancestral since admittedly he
had inherited the same from his father.
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.
A 30. In so far as the question whether under the custom
governing the parties, a Will could be executed in respect of
ancestral property is concerned, the same is no more res
integra. A learned Single Judge of this court in Kartari Dev and
Ors. v. Tota Ram [1992 (1) Sim. LC. 4021) has held that in
B view of section 30 read with section 4 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 a male Hindu governed by Mitakshara system is not
debarred from making a Will in respect of coparcenary/
ancestral property.
31. The above view of the learned Single Judge was
C upheld and approved by a Division Bench of this court in Tek
Chand and Another v. Moo/ Raj and Others [1997 (2) Hindu
L.R. 306).
32. In view of the above ratio, the learned District Judge
D has erred in upholding the validity of the Will Ex. OW 1/A only
to the extent of the interest of the deceased in the property.
Such findings are wrong and liable to be set aside.
33. There is yet another significant aspect of the case. The
E present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the
mutation of inheritance bearing No.1313 sanctioned on
20.2.1988 was wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on
his rights and that the land property in dispute was jointly owned
and possessed by him and defendant nos.3 to 6 in equal
shares. Further that the Will dated 4.12.1978 was null and void
F and inoperative beyond the competency of the deceased and
also being the result of fraud, misrepresentation etc. Such suit
was filed on 21.5.1991.
34. Regarding question no.4 pertaining to the Will, the High
G Court has observed that the concurrent findings being purely
on the question of fact. i.e. with regard to the execution of the
Will cannot be interfered with in the Second Appeal. The High
Court also observed that the property in the hands of the
deceased Balak Ram was ancestral in character. The High
H Court also observed that a Will could not be executed as far
f SHYAM LAL @ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1067
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
as ancestral property was concerned and in view of the clear A.
legal position this matter was no longer res integra.
~
~ Limitation (Issue No.8)
35. Regarding the limitation, the High Court observed as
under:- B
"Undisputedly, the period of limitation prescribed under the
law for such a suit is three years from the date the cause
of action accrued to the plaintiff. It has been averred by the
plaintiff in para 9 of his plaint, as to cause of action, as c
under:-
"that the cause of action has arisen on 31.10.87
from death on 20.2.88 from mutation and on various
other dates from the knowledge of the illegalities
f D
and wrongful actions of Village Jabal Jamrot
Pargana Haripur Teh. and Distt. Solan within the
jurisdiction of this Court, hence this matter has
jurisdiction in the matter."
36. The learned Trial Court, while recording the findings E
under issue no.8 has held the suit to be not within time. No
findings have been recorded by the learned District Judge on
the question of limitation. Considering the pleadings as a whole
as set out in the plaint, the suit of the plaintiff as laid, on the
face of it, was not within time. There were neither pleadings nor F
evidence as to the date on which the plaintiff had derived the
knowledge about the mutation and/or the Will.
37. In the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the
decree dated 11.9.1997 of the District Judge and that of the
learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff restored.
G
In the impugned judgment, the High Court also dealt with the
question of limitation. The High Court observed that learned
Trial Court while recording the findings under issue no.8 has
held the suit to be not within time. No findings have been
recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 5 S.C.R.
A limitation. Considering the pleadings as a whole as set out in
the plaint, the suit of the plaintiff as laid, on the face of it, was
not within time. There were neither pleadings nor evidence as
to the date on which the plaintiff had derived the knowledge
about the mutation and/or the Will.
B
38. Both the Trial Court and the District Court did not deal
with this aspect of limitation in a proper perspective. The High
Court, in our considered view has given correct findings
regarding limitation. We have carefully and critically examined
the findings of the High Court on the issues of Will and
C consequent mutation. The findings of the High Court are based
on correct evaluation of evidence and record of the case.
39. The findings of the High Court on the interpretation of
Section 112 of the Evidence Act are based on correct analysis
D of Indian and English cases for the last more than a century.
According to the legislative intention and spirit behind Section
112 of Evidence Act it is abundantly clear that once the validity
of marriage is proved then there is strong presumption about
the legitimacy of children born out of that wedlock. The
E presumption can only be rebutted by a strong, clear satisfying
and conclusive evidence. The presumption cannot be displaced
by mere balance of probabilities or any circumstance creating
doubt.
F 40. In the instant case, admittedly the plaintiff and defendant
no.4 were born to Smt. Durgi during the continuance of her valid
marriage with the deceased Balak Ram. Their marriage was
infact never dissolved. There is no evidence on record that the
deceased Balak Ram at any point of time did not have access
to Smt. Durgi. According to the clear interpretation of section
G 112 of the Evidence Act, there is strong presumption about the
legitimacy of children born out of continuation of the valid
marriage.
41. It is well settled principle of law that Odiosa et
H inkonesta non sunt in lege prae sumenda (nothing odious or
SHYAM LAL@ KULDEEP v. SANJEEV KUMAR & 1069
1
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
dishonourable will be presumed by the law). The law presumes A
against vice and immorality. In a civilized society it is imperative
1 to presume legitimacy of a child born during continuation of a
valid marriage and whose parents had "access" to each other.
42. It is undesirable to enquire into paternity of a child B
whose parents "have access" to each other. Section 112 of the
Evidence Act is based on presumption of public morality and
public policy.
43. It our considered view, no interference is called for. This
appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed c
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
~
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Hindu Succession Act"Sign in to search