TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal No. 138-A of 1987. The appeal before the First appellate court was directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1985 passed by learned Second Civil Judge Class I, Satna in Civil Suit No. 52- A of 1982. The suit was filed by the respondents herein for nullifying and setting aside sale deed dated 10.9.1980 and also for permanent injunction of land at Sl. Nos. 4009, 4010, 4011 and 4014. The sale deed dated 10.9.1980 was in respect of lands at Sl. Nos. 3853, 3993, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4009. 4010, 4014, 4015 and 4021 of Mauza Nayagaon, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna. According to them the disputed property is the joint ancestral property of Radhika Singh, Sunder Singh and the husband of plaintiff No. 1, Dadau Singh who was the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Nos. 2 and 3 have got their names mutated in respect of certain lands, therefore the suit was filed. In the written statement filed the defendants took the stand that the family tree indicated by the plaintiff was correct. Out of the land 12 acres owned by the family of Durghatiya, the plaintiff No. 1 had sold her share of land. About 30 years back partition has taken place between Dadau and Sunder. Dadau had separated after taking his share. He got the land in certain villages. Radhika and Sunder used to live jointly and used to do cultivation over the land which they got in partition. They died while living jointly in the year 1970. Plaintiff-Durghatia and Radhika had sold their land in the capacity of owners during their lifetime. Sund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iage, as for decades Radhika and plaintiff No. 1 lived together, their daughters were given in marriage by Radhika. Loli the defendant No. 1 was earlier married to Mangala Kochhi and after his death she married Radhika. It is to be noted that the stand of the plaintiffs was that Loli married Radhika during the lifetime of Mangal Katchhi. The trial court rejected this plea. The first appellate court observed that Loli started living with Radhika during the life time of Mangal Katchhi, so the presumption of valid marriage was not there. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court was challenged before the High Court. The High Court formulated the following questions for adjudication: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Mangal Kachhi had died. Lolli used to work as a labourer. She also used to be labourer with Radhika Singh. Radhika Singh had retained Lolli as his wife. The daughters of Lolli were married off by Radhika Singh. Ram Milan Singh had admitted in his statement that all these four daughters were alive. They were born of Radhika and Lolli. The daughters which were born of Radhika Singh, their Kanyadan was also performed by Radhika Singh. He has also admitted this in his statement that Radhika Singh had married off his daughters as Vaishyas and Thakurs married off their daughters. He had attended the marriage. 7. In para 24 it was observed as follows: This has also been argued by learned Counsel of the plaintiff that even if this is accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was not alive when Lolli came and stayed with Radhika. 9. At this juncture reference may be made to the Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case. 10. A number of judicial pronouncements have been made on this aspect of the matter. The Privy Council, on two occasio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umption of marriage, but the presumption which maybe drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. 15. As noted above, the continuous living together of Lolli and Radhika has been established. In fact the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff also established this fact. The conclusion of the first appellate court that they were living together when Mangal was alive has not been established. The evidence on record clearly shows that Lolli and Radhika were living together after the death of Mangal. 16. Above being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The judgment and decree of the first appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
