In The Absence Of Proof For Living Together Under One Roof, Presumption Of Marital Relationship Cannot Be Drawn.
The Madras Excessive Courtroom held that, within the absence of proof for dwelling collectively below one roof, the presumption of a relationship as husband and spouse can’t be drawn.
An attraction was filed earlier than the Madras Excessive Courtroom in opposition to the order of the trial courtroom denying conjugal relationship of the deceased and appellant spouse and the genuineness of the Will alleged by the appellants.
The Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran noticed, “In all of the instances cited the place the Courts have drawn a presumption in favour of marriage, we discover that clinching proof equivalent to little one’s delivery certificates, household card or another official paperwork clearly exhibiting that the person and lady lived collectively as husband and spouse below one roof. Within the prompt case, for the wedding alleged to have been solemnised within the yr 1991, no documentary proof is accessible and the oral proof has been discovered to be unreliable. Additional, no proof has been produced to show joint dwelling or cohabitation. The mere possession of the private paperwork of the deceased particular person won’t be ample to presume the conjugal relationship.”
Advocate P. Jagadeesan represented the Appellants, whereas Advocate V. Raghavachari represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
A swimsuit for partition and separate possession of the properties belonging to the deceased based mostly on a Will in favour of appellants have been filed. The appellants are siblings. It was claimed that the appellants are the spouse and brother-in-law of the deceased and the deceased has bequeathed his properties to the appellants out of affection.
Nonetheless, the mentioned Will in query was denied as false and fabricated and it was contended by the respondent that the appellant-wife was by no means married to the deceased.
The Appellants contended that the wedding must be presumed from their conduct and needn’t be strictly proved as a truth, particularly when the occasions occurred a number of years in the past, i.e. constant lengthy cohabitation between two individuals as husband and spouse is ample to presume that they’re married.
Courtroom’s Evaluation
The Madras Excessive Courtroom famous that the alleged Will of the deceased was not registered or signed, regardless of going to the Sub-Registrar’s Workplace for the execution of the Will. Since the proof on document doesn’t show the due execution of the Will, the appellants can not maintain their swimsuit for partition based mostly on that Will.
Relating to the wedding between the appellant-wife and the deceased, the Courtroom opined that legislation presumes in favour of marriage and in opposition to concubinage, when a person and lady have cohabited constantly for quite a lot of years. Nonetheless, such a presumption may be rebutted by main unimpeachable proof.
“The case of the plaintiff isn’t lengthy cohabitation however a sound and formal solemnisation of marriage within the presence of kinfolk and pals. Nonetheless, the witnesses for the plaintiffs admitted that there was no marriage invitation, no images and no registration of the alleged marriage. In case, there isn’t any direct proof of the solemnisation of marriage”, the Courtroom added.
The Courtroom additional noticed that the most effective proof to point out cohabitation below one roof is the household card, voter identification card or another official paperwork, nevertheless, the appellants failed to supply any materials proof to show that they have been residing with the deceased.
Accordingly, the Enchantment was dismissed.
Trigger Title: Alamelu & Ane V. Chinnarja Konar (Died) by means of K. Selvi
Look:
Appellants: Advocate P. Jagadeesan
Respondents: Advocates V. Raghavachari, N. Umapathy