Bombay High Court
Hoovayya Kanthappa Shetty vs Renuks S. Shetty on 21 December, 1983
Equivalent citations: AIR1984BOM229, 1984(2)BOMCR356, AIR 1984 BOMBAY 229, (1984) 1 CIV LJ 463, (1984) 2 BOM CR 356, (1984) MAH LJ 345
JUDGMENT
1. The short question that arises inthios civil revision applicaiton filed u|s 115 of the Cvil Procedure Code. Is as to on whom the burden of proof lies of the satements| averments made by him || her pleadings.
2. The resondent (Original Plaintiff) filed s.SC Suit No. 1228 of 1978 in the City Civil Court, Bombay. Against the petitioenr (original defendant) for possession of certain restaurant business alosnt with certain moveable properties and also the premises in whichthe sad business is carried on and payment of certain sum of money together with damages or mesne profits at certain rate and for accounts. In the said suit her pleaidng in para 1 of the plaint is as under : -
"the plaintiffs is the daughter of one Ramaya SEtty who died intestate at Bombay on 4th August 1977, leaving behind him surviving the plaintiffs as his only hier and legal representative".
3. To this pleading petitioner replied by his written statement vide para 2 thus :-
"The Defendant further submits that the plaintiff has no cause of action inasmusch as the plaintiff is not an hier and legal representative of the Ramayya ..Shetty, the plaintiff being an .. Dassu Shetty. The planitiff is daughter is one smt. Gulabi who was not married to the said deceased Ramayya Dassu Setty".
4. On these pleading of the parties initilaly while framing several other issues on other pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed Issue No.1 as under :
"Whether the plaintiff provess that she is the hier of the deceased RAmayya d. Shetty?"
5. The suit was then set down for hearing and final disposal and when if aame uip and final on August 16, 1983 for recording the evdence the respondent applied for re-settling Issue No.1 submitting that the said issue be recast and the burden of proof br shifted form the plaintiff to the defendeant. Thereafter, on hearing the parties the trial Court recast original Issue No.1 by its order dated September 26, 1983 as under:-
"Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is illegitimate child of deceased Ramayya?
6. It is the said order recasting Issue No. 1 as above that has been challenged by the petitioner in this revision application.
7. Mr. Badkar, learned counsel application on behalf of the petitioner, urged burden of proof as to whether is the legal heir and of deceased Ramayya Dassu Shetty is on her as plaintiff and the burden is should not have been shifted to the petitioner to prove whther she was the illegitimate child of decased Ramayya assu Shetty. Mr. Badkar brought to my notice several decision as reagrads the burden of proof in the like matters in cases of Mt. Bassati v Poj\hlu (AIR 1952 Bilaspur 13), K.S Naji & Co. v. Jata shankar Dossa , B. Mahedeva Rao v. Yesida Bai Sunkavilli Sura,ma v. Goli Sathiraju and Mahendra Manilal Nanawati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanvati to show as to how to the burden of proof shifts andd on whom the ultimately it lies to be discharged. As rightly submitted by Mr. Shetty, in reply all these ruling have no relevance because they pertain to appreciation of the evidence regard being had to the nature of the facts and circumstances obtaining in those individual case. The only authority having some relevance to which Mr. Badkar has invited my attention is the cse of Ch. Kanhaiya Bux singh c. Mt Ram Bai Kuer (AIR 1944 Oudh 162) in which it was held :
"Where a plaintiff claims to recover property as the son to of the any person by his lawfully married wife and the defendant denies that the wife ever gave birth to the child and sets up that the plaintiff was the son of a woman other than the lawfully married wife the onus of proof is upon the person who claims to show that thelawfully wedded wife gave birth to him before invoking the presumption in favour of legitimacy without laying the ofundation for it under S. 112 nadely that a valid marriage took place between the parents".
8. Prima facie this authorty appears to be helpful to Mr. Badkar but is careful reading to shows that in fact it is not, for the presumption sought to be relied upon in the said case was u|s 112 of t the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 whereas in the instant case we are concerned with the general presumption available with the regard u|s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
9. The submission of Mr. Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in this regard is that the petitioner in our case has admited the paternity of the respondent and, therefore, there is geneal presumption in favour of the legitimate birth of the respondent u|s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. To bring home his point Mr. Shetty, releid upon commentary on the law of EVeidence , by Woodroffe & Amirali, 14th Edition Page 2295, para 119 that :
"There is a presumption in favour of legitimacy and marriage, and therefore, on any person, who is interested in making the out the illegitimacy of another, is thrown the whole burden of proving it. The burden of proving , that theconnection between the mother and ther father of the ileegitimate child involved the criminal offence and grave ims-conduct of adultery, is one the person who sets up of that contention".
10. I am in full agreement with what MR. Shetty, has submitted for the simple reason that the petitioner has in para 2 of his written statement admitted that the respondent was a child of one Ramayya Dassu Shetty. But the asserts that she was the illegitimate child of the said deceased Ramayya Dassu Shetty being the daughter of one Gulabi who was not married to deceased Ramayya Dassu Shetty. In other words, it is the petitioner who assets that the respondent was illegitimate child of deceased Ramayya Dassu shetty and Gulabi. When he makes such an assertion the burden of proving it conclusively is on him that there was no valid marriage between deceased Ramayya Dassu Shetty and Smt. Culabi and as such the child born to them viz the present respondent was an ileegitimate child. In support of his contentions Mr. Shetty invited mu attention to a couple of rulings to which we may usefully refer here. Thus in Dularey singh (AIR 1918 Oudh 103) it was held :
11. Where a party admits the paternity of other party but pleads that he is of illegitimate descent, the legal presumption being in favour of legitimacy onus lies on the party alleging illegitimacy to prove it".
12. Likewise is case of shivajirao Laqad v. Bapurao Laqad
13. Law Presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage and on him who challanges the legitimacy must be thrown the burden of proving it".
14. In view of this position inlaw and the facts and circumstances obtaining iin the instant case I find no infimity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial ZJudge recasting isssue No. 1 and dframing the one as stated herinabove. There is thus to no substance in this revision accordingly discharged with costs.
15. Rule discharged.