Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kisan Dharma Ramteke (Since Deceased ... vs Deorao Motiram Ramteke on 4 September, 2024
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8531 OF 2024
KISAN DHARMA RAMTEKE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS)
(PETITIONER NO.1) & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEORAO MOTIRAM RAMTEKE & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (defendants). Also heard Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (plaintiffs).
2. The challenge here is to the judgment dated 20.04.2018 of the High Court whereby the learned Judge has set aside the judgment of the appellate court - favouring the defendants. The High Court then restored the decree granted by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umrer on 09.01.1987, granting the decree of possession to the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit No. 83 of 1976. Before proceeding any further, the following family tree is extracted for easy understanding of the parties relationship with each other:
Laxman Motiram Ziblabai (W) Ganpat Tukadibai (W) (sis/o Saibai) (Original Pltff/ Dead) Saibai (W) (Pat marriage)
1. Deorao (son)
2. Shriram (son)
3. Jaiturabai (daughter) Pltffs. 1. Kisan Ramteke
4. Anusayabai (daughter) Signature Not Verified
2. Ramdas Ramteke. Dfdts.Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA 3. Vithoba Ramteke (From 1st H) Date: 2024.09.10 16:55:15 IST Reason:
1
3. The essential facts for consideration of this appeal can be culled out from the judgment of the High Court:
“2. …….. ……. ….. ….. ….. ….. …. ….. ….:-
Motiram (predecessor of the appellants) and Ganpat were brothers. Zibalabai was the wife of Motiram and Tukadibai was the wife of said Ganpat. Motiram and Ganpat were sons of one Laxman and they were in ownership and possession of their respective properties. Ganpat and Tukadibai were issueless while Motiram and Zibalabi had two daughters and two sons. The said Motiram filed suit for possession in respect of agricultural field in Kh. No.50 at mouza Kitadi and Kh. No.05 at mouza Ranbodi, which were fields belonging to his brother Ganpat, on the basis that Ganpat had died in the year 1967 and his widow Tukadibai died in the year 1974. It was his case that since Ganpat and Tukadibai were issueless, the properties belonging to Ganpat were inherited by him. It was his case that after the death of Tukadibai, the respondents had taken forcible possession of the suit properties under the impression that there were no legal heirs in respect of the properties. The respondents were the sons of Tukadibai's sister Saibai.
3. According to said Motiram, when the respondents resisted his claim on the suit properties, he had sent notice by registered post to them and thereafter, he was constrained to file the said suit for possession bearing Regular Civil Suit No.83 of 1976, before the trial Court. As the said Motiram died during the pendency of the suit, the appellants, being his widow and children were brought on record.
4. The respondents appeared before the trial Court and opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. They submitted that said Ganpat had performed "Pat-marriage" with their mother Saibai who was the sister of Tukadibai. They further claimed that during his life time Ganpat had partitioned the suit property belonging to him amongst his two wives Tukadibai and Saibai in equal shares. They further claimed that on 01-04-1967, their mother Saibai had executed registered Sale Deed in respect of the share that came to their mother in pursuance of 2 the aforesaid partition and further that upon the death of Tukadibai, they came into possession of the entire suit property. It was further claimed that an earlier suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 1967 had been filed against them and their mother Saibai for possession, which had been dismissed and that therefore, the suit filed by the predecessor of the appellants was not maintainable.”
4. The crucial question here is whether Ganpat who did not have any children through his wife – Tukadibai, actually entered into a second marriage with Saibai (Tukadibai’s sister). The counsel for the appellants would submit that there was a Pat marriage between Ganpat and Saibai and therefore Saibai and her children born through her earlier husband Dharma, would have a legitimate claim in the property of Ganpat.
5. The First Appellate Court while reversing the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs relied upon the decision in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527 and opined that a strong presumption of marriage between the parties would arise if they have lived together for a considerably long period.
6. The High Court however adverted to the weak evidence adduced from the defendants side on the alleged Pat marriage between Ganpat and Saibai. The Court noted that Vithoba, who was defendant No. 3 and who testified as DW-1, was a child when the alleged Pat marriage took place between her mother Saibai and Ganpat. Likewise, Govinda (DW-2) who mentioned about the Pat marriage in the year 1946-1947 between Ganpat and Saibai admitted in his cross-examination that he had not attended the said marriage. Thus, the High Court opined that 3 the conclusion could not be drawn on the Pat marriage between Ganpat and Saibai, on the basis of evidence of the said two witnesses.
7. On whether there is a custom of Pat marriage in the community of Ganpat and Saibai, the High Court also noticed that no person belonging to the community of the parties was produced to suggest the existence of a custom of Pat marriage within the community. Consequently, as Ganpat and Tukadibai had died issueless, the plaintiff – Motiram, being the brother of Ganpat and the nearest legal heir, was held entitled to the property of the deceased brother.
8. We have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also appreciated the evidence adduced in the case. The view taken by the High Court to restore the decree granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs cannot really be faulted since the defendants, who were the children born to Saibai from her first husband Dharma, failed to prove the Pat marriage between their mother Saibai and Ganpat. The first appellate court also erred in placing reliance on Badri Prasad (supra) to draw a presumption of a valid marriage between Ganpat and Saibai when the first wife of Ganpat i.e., Tukadibai was alive.
9. In view of the foregoing, this appeal is found devoid of merit. The same is dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J. (HRISHIKESH ROY) ..................J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 04, 2024.
4
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.5 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 8531/2024
KISAN DHARMA RAMTEKE (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) (PETITIONER NO.1) & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS DEORAO MOTIRAM RAMTEKE & ORS. Respondent(s) ([AMONGST THE FIRST FIVE MATTERS]) Date : 04-09-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Appellant(s) Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5