Supreme Court: In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the three-judges bench of B.K. Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar and N.H. Bhagwati*, JJ., opined that the Patna High Court (‘the High Court’) had rightly pointed out that the Second Court of Sub-Judge, Patna (‘the Trial Court’) did not consider as to why people of different villages had come forward to state on oath that the respondents’ mother was the wife of Appellant 1 and the children were born out of the union between the two. The Supreme Court opined that if the respondents’ mother was really a fallen woman, as claimed by the appellants, it was not consistent with ordinary probabilities that so many witnesses would have come forward to foist her and her children on the appellants’ family. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the evidence of the witnesses believed as it was by the High Court was right and enough to prove the marriage of the respondents’ mother with Appellant 1. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court was justified in differing from the finding of fact arrived by the Trial Court and the appellants’ oral and documentary evidence was mostly of negative character which was not sufficient to rebut the positive evidence led by the respondents.
Background
In an instant case, the respondents claimed to be the sons of Jethu Mahthon, who was the Appellant 1 in the present case and filed a suit in the Trial Court against the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appellants denied that the respondents were the legitimate sons of Appellant 5. The Trial Court opined that the marriage of the respondents’ mother with Appellant 5 was not proved and dismissed the respondents’ suit. Thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal, and the High Court held that the marriage of the respondents’ mother with Appellant 5 was proved and the respondents were the legitimate sons of Appellant 5 and decreed the suit.
Thus, the appellants filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court after considering the entire oral evidence on record by both the appellants and the respondents, opined that the view taken by the High Court was quite proper. The Supreme Court observed that all the respondents witnesses had near relations to the respondent’s mother, who might normally be expected to know about her marriage with Appellant 1. However, on the appellants side, with the single exception of Appellant 1 himself, whose evidence was a tissue of contradictions and incoherent statements, none of the family members had come forward to depose in this case.
The Supreme Court opined that the High Court had rightly pointed out that while assessing the value of the witnesses’ evidence in the present case, the Trial Court had not stopped to consider as to why people of different villages had come forward to state on oath that the respondents’ mother was the wife of Appellant 1 and the children were born out of the union between the two. The Supreme Court opined that if the respondents’ mother was really a fallen woman, as claimed by the appellants, it was not consistent with ordinary probabilities that so many witnesses would have come forward to foist her and her children on the appellants’ family. Thus, the evidence of the witnesses believed as it was by the High Court was right and enough to prove the marriage of the respondents’ mother with Appellant 1.
The Supreme Court opined that some of the documentary evidence of the respondents also corroborated the respondents’ story. In the earlier suit proceedings that were filed, it was shown that in 1927 and 1930, Respondent 1 was recognised as the minor son of Appellant 1, and the same was mentioned in the records of those suits by the family members who had the special means of knowledge and this was done before any question arose regarding the marriage of the respondents’ mother with Appellant 1. The Supreme Court opined that this would certainly be the evidence of Respondent 1 being the legitimate son of Appellant 1 as per Section 13 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Supreme Court opined that Awadh Narain, one of the appellants, who was the karta and manager of the appellants’ joint family did not step into the witness box nor did his mother, who was certainly the best person to know if there was a marriage between the respondents’ mother and Appellant 1. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court was justified in differing from the finding of fact arrived by the Trial Court and the appellants’ oral and documentary evidence was mostly of negative character which was not sufficient to rebut the positive evidence led by the respondents.
[Jethu Mathon v. Bhatu Mathon, (1952) 2 SCC 366, decided on 07-11-1952]
Note: Conclusive proof of legitimacy of children
Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy. As per the provision, if any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred eighty days, after the dissolution of marriage, the mother remained unmarried, it shall be conclusive proof that the child 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 the child could have been begotten.
*Judgment by- Justice N.H. Bhagwati
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: S.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (S.C. Sinha, Ambika Prasad and Bawdeshwari Prasad, Advocates, with them);
For the Respondents: N.C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (B.K. Saram, Advocate, with them)
