27.08.2025 Pronounced on 1. RSA-1469 1469-1998 (O&M) Smt. Bidamo (since deceased) through her LRs v. Manbhari and Another Manbhari and Another
Case Details
1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Reserved on: Pronounced on:27.08.2025 Pronounced on 1. RSA-1469 1469-1998 (O&M) Smt. Bidamo (since deceased) through her LRs Smt. Bidamo (since deceased) .....Appellant VERSUS Manbhari and Another Manbhari and Another .....Respondents 2. RSA-2101 2101-1998 (O&M) Smt. Bidamo (since deceased) through her LRs Smt. Bidamo (since deceased) through her LRs .....Appellant Manbhari and Another Manbhari and Another .....Respondents VERSUS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. relevant to Before proceeding to discuss the factual matrix, it is relevant to Before proceeding to discuss the factual matrix, i Before proceeding to discuss the factual matrix, i Badami mention here that there were two suits; one filed by Badami, titled as “Smt. Badami mention here that there were two suits; one filed by Badami, titled as “ mention here that there were two suits; one filed by Badami, titled as “ Vs. Smt. Manbhari and Another” and second filed by Manbhari titled as Vs. Smt. Manbhari and Another” “Smt. and second filed by Manbhari titled as “Smt. “Smt. Manbhari and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others.” The suit titled as “Smt. Manbhari and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others.” Manbhari and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others.”
Legal Reasoning
Ajaib Singh and others Vs. Mann Singh and judgment of this Court in the case of Ajaib Singh and others Vs. Mann Singh and Ajaib Singh and others Vs. Mann Singh and judgment of this Court in the case of this Court in the said judgment has others [1968 PLR 83] has submitted that this Court in the said judgment has this Court in the said judgment has others [1968 PLR 83] , 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) observed that Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) observed that Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act observed that Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -8- makes the opinion of a witness relevant only if the same was expressed by conduct makes the opinion of a witness relevant only if the same was expressed by conduct makes the opinion of a witness relevant only if the same was expressed by conduct makes the opinion of a witness relevant only if the same was expressed by conduct whereas in the case in hand it is not so, no such evidence has come on the record whereas in the case in hand it is not so, no such evidence has come on the record whereas in the case in hand it is not so, no such evidence has come on the record whereas in the case in hand it is not so, no such evidence has come on the record contention of learned that fulfils the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. This contention of learned that fulfils the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. This that fulfils the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. This counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 22. Relevant part of the Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Relevant part of the Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Relevant part of the Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Relevant part of the Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- ationship of 50. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of “50. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the re 50. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the re , expressed by conduct as to the one person to another the opinion, expressed by conduct as to the one person to another the opinion one person to another the opinion existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the existence of such relationship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is relevant fact” relevant fact” 23. In the present case, significantly, Lal Chand (DW5 In the present case, s Hari ignificantly, Lal Chand (DW5), son of Hari Ram’s real brother, categorically deposed that he had attended the marriage and Ram’s real brother, categorically deposed that he had attended the marriage and Ram’s real brother, categorically deposed that he had attended the marriage and Ram’s real brother, categorically deposed that he had attended the marriage and that thereafter Hari Ram and Manbhari lived together as hus that thereafter Hari Ram and Man band and wife at ari lived together as husband and wife at village Kaliraman, wherefrom Ud an, wherefrom Ude Ram was born. His testimony of great value, Ram was born. His testimony is of great value, he being a close relation with special means of knowledge on the relationship of e relation with special means of knowledge on the relationship of with special means of knowledge on the relationship of Hari Ram and Manbhari. Hari Ram and Manbhari. 24. The Lower Appellate Court further placed reliance upon voter lists The Lower Appellate Court further placed reliance upon voter lists The Lower Appellate Court further placed reliance upon voter lists The Lower Appellate Court further placed reliance upon voter lists hari was recorded as the wife of Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 of village Muklan, in which Manbhari was recorded as the wife of Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 of village Muklan, in which Man Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 of village Muklan, in which Man Ram as his son. It was observed that although the Trial Court Hari Ram, and Ude Ram as his son. It was observed that although the Trial Court Ram as his son. It was observed that although the Trial Court Hari Ram, and U discarded these documents on the ground of absence of pleadings regarding discarded these documents on the ground of absence of pleadings regarding discarded these documents on the ground of absence of pleadings regarding discarded these documents on the ground of absence of pleadings regarding residence at Muklan, this reasoning was unsustainable. In Civil Suit filed by residence at Muklan, this reasoning was unsustainable. In Civil Suit filed by residence at Muklan, this reasoning was unsustainable. In Civil Suit filed by residence at Muklan, this reasoning was unsustainable. In Civil Suit filed by Manbhari herself, her residence at vill hari herself, her residence at village Kaliraman was specifically pleaded. Kaliraman was specifically pleaded. Thus, the voter lists were rightly admissible and corroborated the respondents’ Thus, the voter lists were rightly admissible and corroborated the respondents’ Thus, the voter lists were rightly admissible and corroborated the respondents’ Thus, the voter lists were rightly admissible and corroborated the respondents’ case. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -9- 25. The contradiction relied upon by the Trial Court between pleadings of The contradiction relied upon by the Trial Court between pleadings of The contradiction relied upon by the Trial Court between pleadings of The contradiction relied upon by the Trial Court between pleadings of Manbhari in her suit (stating that hari in her suit (stating that she married with con auri) and in she married with consent of Mamkauri) and in her written statement (stating that she married after the death of Mamk her written statement (stating that she auri) was married after the death of Mamkauri) was also clarified. The Lower Appellate Court held that there was no categorical also clarified. The Lower Appellate Court held that there was no categorical also clarified. The Lower Appellate Court held that there was no categorical also clarified. The Lower Appellate Court held that there was no categorical admission of contracting marriage during the lifetime of Mamkauri. Rather admission of contracting marriage during the lifetime of Mam admission of contracting marriage during the lifetime of Mam auri. Rather, a auri, being issueless, had combined reading of the pleadings showed that Mamkauri, being issueless, had combined reading of the pleadings showed that Mam combined reading of the pleadings showed that Mam consented during her lifetime, and after her death, Hari Ram solemnised marriage consented during her lifetime, and after her death, Hari Ram solemnised marriage consented during her lifetime, and after her death, Hari Ram solemnised marriage consented during her lifetime, and after her death, Hari Ram solemnised marriage with Manbhari. The so called contradiction was therefore illusory. hari. The so-called contradiction was therefore illusory. 26. herself was found unconvincing. In cross- The statement of Bidamo herself was found unconvincing. In cross herself was found unconvincing. In cross The statement of was examination she admitted that she had not seen her father since childhood and was examination she admitted that she had not seen her father since childhood examination she admitted that she had not seen her father since childhood brought up by her maternal uncle, and had learnt about her father only from brought up by her maternal uncle, and had learnt about her father only from brought up by her maternal uncle, and had learnt about her father only from brought up by her maternal uncle, and had learnt about her father only from y. Similarly, PW2 Gulab villagers. Her testimony, therefore, was at best hearsay. Similarly, PW2 Gulab villagers. Her testimony, therefore, was at best hearsa villagers. Her testimony, therefore, was at best hearsa hari. Singh admitted ignorance about the relationship between Hari Ram and Manbhari. Singh admitted ignorance about the relationship between Hari Ram and Man Singh admitted ignorance about the relationship between Hari Ram and Man 27. The Lower Appellate Court also referred to Section 50 of the Indian The Lower Appellate Court also referred to Section 50 of the Indian The Lower Appellate Court also referred to Section 50 of the Indian The Lower Appellate Court also referred to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , which makes relevant the opinion, expressed by conduct, of , 1872, which makes relevant the opinion, expressed by conduct, of , which makes relevant the opinion, expressed by conduct, of persons with special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of one person persons with special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of one person persons with special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of one person persons with special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of one person to another. In the present case, relatives and villagers consistently regarded Hari to another. In the present case, relatives and villagers consistently regarded Hari to another. In the present case, relatives and villagers consistently regarded Hari to another. In the present case, relatives and villagers consistently regarded Hari Ram as their son. This conduct hari as husband and wife, and Ude Ram as their son. This conduct hari as husband and wife, and Ud Ram and Manbhari as husband and wife, and Ud nd corroborative. was relevant and corroborative. 28. he evidence of Lal Chand, a close relative with direct knowledge, is The evidence of Lal Chand, a close relative with direct knowledge, is he evidence of Lal Chand, a close relative with direct knowledge, is he evidence of Lal Chand, a close relative with direct knowledge, is of sterling worth and corroborates the case of the defendants. The voter lists, duly of sterling worth and corroborates the case of the defendants. The voter lists, duly of sterling worth and corroborates the case of the defendants. The voter lists, duly of sterling worth and corroborates the case of the defendants. The voter lists, duly proved, are official records carrying a presumption of correctness. The birth proved, are official records carrying a presumption of correctness. The birth proved, are official records carrying a presumption of correctness. The birth proved, are official records carrying a presumption of correctness. The birth register, Ex.D5, specifically recording the birth of a son to Hari Ram in 1954, register, Ex.D5, specifically recording the birth of a son to Hari Ram in 1954, register, Ex.D5, specifically recording the birth of a son to Hari Ram in 1954, register, Ex.D5, specifically recording the birth of a son to Hari Ram in 1954, clinches the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that these entries pertain clinches the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that these entries pertain clinches the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that these entries pertain clinches the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that these entries pertain to any person other than the present parties. to any person other than the present parties. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -10- 29. The testimony of Bidamo, on the other h The testimony of and, is insufficient, being , on the other hand, is insufficient, being based on hearsay and devoid of personal knowledge. Once the defendants based on hearsay and devoid of personal knowledge. Once the defendants based on hearsay and devoid of personal knowledge. Once the defendants based on hearsay and devoid of personal knowledge. Once the defendants discharged their burden through oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, discharged their burden through oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, discharged their burden through oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, discharged their burden through oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, the plea of the appellant could not be sustained. the plea of the appellant could not be sustained. Conclusion 30. the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that In light of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that In light of the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the Trial the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the Trial the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the Trial the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the Trial Court. It has carefully appreciated the entire evidence Court. It has carefully a and arrived at a legally ppreciated the entire evidence and arrived at a legally justified conclusion that Manbhari was the widow of Hari Ram and Ud justified conclusion that Man Ram his was the widow of Hari Ram and Ude Ram his is not the sole heir of Hari Ram; the respondents are son. Consequently, Bidamo is not the sole heir of Hari Ram; the respondents are is not the sole heir of Hari Ram; the respondents are son. Consequently, also his legal heirs and entitled to succeed to his estate. also his legal heirs and entitled to succeed to his estate. also his legal heirs and entitled to succeed to his estate. 31. The findings of the Lower Appellate Court being based on proper The findings of the Lower Appellate Court being based on proper The findings of the Lower Appellate Court being based on proper The findings of the Lower Appellate Court being based on proper ciation of evidence and in accordance with law, call for no interference. appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law, call for no interference. ciation of evidence and in accordance with law, call for no interference. 32. the above said two Regular Second Appeals are the above said two Regular Second Appeals Accordingly, the above said two Regular Second Appeals Accordingly, dismissed. 33.
Arguments
was consolidated vide order and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others” was consolidated vide order and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others” Manbhari and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Others” dated 19.01.1993 with the suit titled as “Smt. dated 19.01.1993 with the suit titled as “ Badami Vs. Smt. Manbhari and Smt. Badami Vs. Smt. Manbhari and vide common judgment and The trial Court disposed of both the suits vide common judgment and The trial Court disposed of both the suits Another”. The trial Court disposed of both the suits decree dated 10.02.1995. Thereafter, defendants decree dated 10.02.1995 Manbhari and Ude Ram alias er, defendants-Manbhari and Ude Ram alias TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -2- preferred two appeals, i.e CA No.38 of 1995 and CA No.37 of 1995 Udey Bhan preferred two appeals, i.e CA No.38 of 1995 and CA No.37 of 1995 preferred two appeals, i.e CA No.38 of 1995 and CA No.37 of 1995 preferred two appeals, i.e CA No.38 of 1995 and CA No.37 of 1995 against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1995. Both the said appeals were against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1995. Both the said appeals were against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1995. Both the said appeals were against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1995. Both the said appeals were and decree dated decided by the lower Appellate Court vide one common judgment and decree dated decided by the lower Appellate Court vide one common judgment decided by the lower Appellate Court vide one common judgment 30.04.1998 as common questions of facts and law were involved in the said 30.04.1998 as common questions of facts and law were involved in the said 30.04.1998 as common questions of facts and law were involved in the said 30.04.1998 as common questions of facts and law were involved in the said appeals. Thereafter, plaintiff Thereafter, plaintiff-Bidamo preferred the above Regular Second Bidamo preferred the above-said two Regular Second Appeals. 2. two Regular Second This order shall dispose of above-mentioned two Regular Second This order shall dispose of above This order shall dispose of above Appeals filed by Smt. filed by Smt. Bidamo, impugning the judgment and decree dated , impugning the judgment and decree dated by common judgment, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court by common judgment, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court 30.04.1998 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants whereby the appeal filed by the responde herein was allowed, the nts/defendants herein was allowed, the judgment and decree decree dated 10.02.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court were dated 10.02.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court were reversed, and the suit of the present appellant was dismissed. reversed, and the suit of the present appellant was dismissed. reversed, and the suit of the present appellant was dismissed. Facts and Pleadings Brief Facts and Pleadings 3. The facts are not much in dispute. One Hari Ram The facts are not was the in dispute. One Hari Ram S/o Jisukh was the recorded owner of agricultural land situated at village Kaliram recorded owner of agricultural an, Tehsil and land situated at village Kaliraman, Tehsil and District Hisar. His whereabouts have not been known for more than three decades, District Hisar. His whereabouts have not been known for more than three decades, District Hisar. His whereabouts have not been known for more than three decades, District Hisar. His whereabouts have not been known for more than three decades, and he was not seen or heard of by any person. Consequently, he was deemed to be and he was not seen or heard of by any person. Consequently, he was deemed to be and he was not seen or heard of by any person. Consequently, he was deemed to be and he was not seen or heard of by any person. Consequently, he was deemed to be .1991 was sanctioned in favour of civilly dead, and mutation No. 4426 dated 10.02.1991 was sanctioned in favour of civilly dead, and mutation No. 4426 dated 10.02 civilly dead, and mutation No. 4426 dated 10.02 Manbhari (defendant No.1) (defendant No.1), Ude Singh alias Ude Bhan (defendant No.2) , and e Singh alias Ude Bhan (defendant No.2), and Badami (plaintiff) (plaintiff) in equal shares. 4. filed by This mutation gave rise to two civil suits. One civil suit was filed by This mutation gave rise to two civil suits. This mutation gave rise to two civil suits. Badami claiming herself to be the so le heir of Hari Ram being his daughter and, ami claiming herself to be the sole heir of Hari Ram being his daughter and, le heir of Hari Ram being his daughter and, therefore, entitled to the entire estate to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, therefore, entitled to the entire estate to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, therefore, entitled to the entire estate to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, therefore, entitled to the entire estate to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, Manbhari and Ud Ram filed a separate suit seeking declaration that the mutation and Ude Ram filed a separate suit seeking declaration that the mutation Ram filed a separate suit seeking declaration that the mutation TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -3- in their favour along with Badami was valid, on the ground that Man in their favour along with Badami was valid hari was the , on the ground that Manbhari was the widow and Ude the son of Hari Ram. Both suits were consolidated. Ram, the son of Hari Ram. Both suits were consolidated. 5. Badami was that Hari Ram never The stand of plaintiff/appellant-Badami was that Hari Ram never Badami was that Hari Ram never The stand of married Manbhari, nor was Ud Ram his son. On the other hand, the respondents ari, nor was Ude Ram his son. On the other hand, the respondents Ram his son. On the other hand, the respondents , he contracted a serted that after the death of Hari Ram’s first wife, Mankori, he contracted a serted that after the death of Hari Ram’s first wife, Ma asserted that after the death of Hari Ram’s first wife, Ma Ram was born out of that wedlock. second marriage with Manbhari, and Ude Ram was born out of that wedlock. second marriage with Ma 6. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- The learned Trial Court framed the following issues: The learned Trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is sole legal heir of Whether the plaintiff is sole legal heir of her father? OPP 1A) 1A) If issue No.1 is not proved by plaintiff then whether defendants If issue No.1 is not proved by plaintiff then whether defendants If issue No.1 is not proved by plaintiff then whether defendants are legal heirs of deceased Hari Ram, if so its effect? OPD are legal heirs of deceased Hari Ram, if so its effect? OPD are legal heirs of deceased Hari Ram, if so its effect? OPD 2) Whether the mutation No.4426 dated 10.02.1991 pertaining to Whether the mutation No.4426 dated 10.02.1991 pertaining to Whether the mutation No.4426 dated 10.02.1991 pertaining to situated at village khewat No.438 khatoni No.855 measuing 72 kanals situated at village khewat No.438 khatoni No.855 measuing 72 kanals khewat No.438 khatoni No.855 measuing 72 kanals Kaliraman is wrong or illegal? OPP Kaliraman is wrong or illegal? OPP Kaliraman is wrong or illegal? OPP 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4) Whether the suit is not signed and verified according to law? Whether the suit is not signed and verified according to law? Whether the suit is not signed and verified according to law? OPD OPD 5) Whether the suit is frivolous and is being filed with ulterior Whether the suit is frivolous and is being filed with ulterior Whether the suit is frivolous and is being filed with ulterior motive and liable to be dismissed? OPD motive and liable to be dismissed? OPD motive and liable to be dismissed? OPD 6) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? hands? 7) Whether the plaintiff be stopped to file the present suit by her Whether the plaintiff be stopped to file the present suit by her Whether the plaintiff be stopped to file the present suit by her own act and conduct? OPD own act and conduct? OPD 8) Relief. 7. Out of the above-mentioned seven issues Out of the above Issues No.1 and 1A were mentioned seven issues, Issues No.1 and 1A were pivotal. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -4- 8. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their contentions. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their contentions. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their contentions. Trial Court Findings Trial Court Findings 9. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court held that the defendants- On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court held that the defendants On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court held that the defendants On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Hari Ram, being his respondents had failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Hari Ram, being his had failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Hari Ram, being his had failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Hari Ram, being his o be illegal, and the widow and son. Consequently, mutation No. 4426 was held to be illegal, and the widow and son. Consequently, mutation No. 4426 was held t widow and son. Consequently, mutation No. 4426 was held t was declared sole owner of the estate. plaintiff/appellant-Badami was declared sole owner of the estate. plaintiff/appellant Lower Appellate Court’s findings Lower Appellate Court’s findings 10. he Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on he Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on he Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court on was Issues 1, 1A and 2, holding that it stood duly proved on record that Manbhari was Issues 1, 1A and 2, holding that it stood duly proved on record that Issues 1, 1A and 2, holding that it stood duly proved on record that the widow of Hari Ram and Ude Ram is his son. Resultantly, the widow of Hari Ram and Ud was not the his son. Resultantly, Bidamo was not the sole heir of Hari Ram, but the respondents also shared his estate. sole heir of Hari Ram, but Accordingly, the the respondents also shared his estate. Accordingly, the lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of plaintiff- lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of plaintiff lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of plaintiff lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of plaintiff Bidamo. appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the 11. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant Learned submits that the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendants failed to discharge the burden casted upon them to respondents-defendants failed to discharge the burden casted upon them to defendants failed to discharge the burden casted upon them to defendants failed to discharge the burden casted upon them to counsel further establish their relationship with deceased Hari Ram. Learned senior counsel further establish their relationship with deceased Hari Ram. Learned establish their relationship with deceased Hari Ram. Learned submits that though the pleaded case of the respondent was that Smt. Manbhari and submits that though the pleaded case of the respondent was that Smt. Manbhari and submits that though the pleaded case of the respondent was that Smt. Manbhari and submits that though the pleaded case of the respondent was that Smt. Manbhari and Sh. Hari Ram lived together as husband and wife for around 20 years in Sh. Hari Ram lived together as husband and wife for around 20 years in Sh. Hari Ram lived together as husband and wife for around 20 years in Sh. Hari Ram lived together as husband and wife for around 20 years in Kaliraman, however, neither any voter list nor any ration card etc. was ever Kaliraman, however, neither any voter list nor any ration card etc. was ever Kaliraman, however, neither any voter list nor any ration card etc. was ever Kaliraman, however, neither any voter list nor any ration card etc. was ever further submits that produced on record in order to establish the aforesaid fact. He further submits that produced on record in order to establish the aforesaid fact. produced on record in order to establish the aforesaid fact. the Birth Certificate dated 28.12.1954 the relationship even from Ex. D5 i.e. the Birth Certificate dated 28.12.1954 the relationship the Birth Certificate dated 28.12.1954 the relationship even from Ex. D5 i.e. between Hari Ram and Ude Bhan was never established as the said certificate between Hari Ram and Ude Bhan was never established as the said certificate between Hari Ram and Ude Bhan was never established as the said certificate between Hari Ram and Ude Bhan was never established as the said certificate reflected the birth of son to Hari Ram at Village Kalait whereas there was no reflected the birth of son to Hari Ram at Village Kalait whereas there was no reflected the birth of son to Hari Ram at Village Kalait whereas there was no reflected the birth of son to Hari Ram at Village Kalait whereas there was no hari and Hari Ram ever lived evidence to establish on record that Smt. Manbhari and Hari Ram ever lived evidence to establish on record that Smt. Manb evidence to establish on record that Smt. Manb TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -5- counsel for the appellant further submits that the together at Kalait. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that the counsel for the appellant further submits that the together at Kalait. Learned deposition of DW5 Lal Chand cannot be relied upon to record on finding in favour deposition of DW5 Lal Chand cannot be relied upon to record on finding in favour deposition of DW5 Lal Chand cannot be relied upon to record on finding in favour deposition of DW5 Lal Chand cannot be relied upon to record on finding in favour of respondent-defendants with respect to the defendants with respect to the marriage of Smt . Manbhari with Hari marriage of Smt. Manbhari with Hari Ram as even as per the deposition made by DW5 Lal Chand, he was never part of Ram as even as per the deposition made by DW5 Lal Chand, he was never part of Ram as even as per the deposition made by DW5 Lal Chand, he was never part of Ram as even as per the deposition made by DW5 Lal Chand, he was never part of Baraat (a marriage party) and thus never saw the marriage having taken place Baraat (a marriage party) and thus never saw the marriage having taken place Baraat (a marriage party) and thus never saw the marriage having taken place Baraat (a marriage party) and thus never saw the marriage having taken place between the two. between the two. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant further submits Learned there has counsel for the appellant further submits that there has defendants in their been contradiction in the stand taken by the respondents-defendants in their been contradiction in the stand taken by the respondents been contradiction in the stand taken by the respondents pleadings in the suit as in the written statement filed on their behalf in Civil Suit pleadings in the suit as in the written statement filed on their behalf in Civil Suit pleadings in the suit as in the written statement filed on their behalf in Civil Suit pleadings in the suit as in the written statement filed on their behalf in Civil Suit C of 1991 titled as 'Badamo versus Manbhari'. The stand taken by No. 95-C of 1991 titled as 'Badamo versus Manbhari'. The stand taken by C of 1991 titled as 'Badamo versus Manbhari'. The stand taken by C of 1991 titled as 'Badamo versus Manbhari'. The stand taken by plaintiff namely defendants was that since the mother of the appellant-plaintiff namely defendants was that since the mother of the appellant respondents-defendants was that since the mother of the appellant Smt. Mamkauri could not bear the child as such Hari Ram got married to Manbhari could not bear the child as such Hari Ram got married to Manbhari could not bear the child as such Hari Ram got married to Manbhari 1990 filed at the instance of respondents the stand taken whereas CS/160-C-RBT-1990 filed at the instance of respondents the stand taken 1990 filed at the instance of respondents the stand taken whereas CS/160 in their plaint was that the marriage between Hari Ram and Ma in their plaint was bhari was that the marriage between Hari Ram and Manbhari was solemnized with the consent of Mamkauri. He solemnized with the consent of Mamk thus submits that in the vague of He thus submits that in the vague of defendants, the adverse influence was contradictory stand taken by the respondents-defendants, the adverse influence was defendants, the adverse influence was contradictory stand taken by the respondents needed to be drawn against them. needed to be drawn against them. s of learned counsel for the respondents Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents s of learned counsel for the respondents 13. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, factum of marriage between Hari Ram and Manbhari was proved submits that the factum of marriage between Hari Ram and Manbhari was proved factum of marriage between Hari Ram and Manbhari was proved submits that the on record, from the deposition of DW1, DW2 Jana and DW3 Hukma who happen from the deposition of DW1, DW2-Jana and DW3 Hukma who happen Jana and DW3 Hukma who happen to be of 70 years of age at the time of deposition and to be of 70 years o are permanent residents of f age at the time of deposition and are permanent residents of village Mayor. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further submits that Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further submits that Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further submits that Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further submits that is very clearly established that Hari Ram was having one on perusal of Ex.D5 it is very clearly established that Hari Ram was having one is very clearly established that Hari Ram was having one on perusal of Ex.D5 it TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -6- and circumstances of the given case no one else except son and in the facts and circumstances of the given case no one else except and circumstances of the given case no one else except son and in the facts the son of Hari Ram and thus in the defendant No. 2 has claimed himself to be the son of Hari Ram and thus in the the son of Hari Ram and thus in the defendant No. 2 has claimed himself to ppeared as DW1 read with Ex.D5, vague of deposition made by Manbhari having appeared as DW1 read with Ex.D5, vague of deposition made by Manbhari having a vague of deposition made by Manbhari having a be the wife of Hari Ram and it was established on record that Manbhari happen to be the wife of Hari Ram and it was established on record that Manbhari happen to it was established on record that Manbhari happen to Bhan to be his son. Ude Bhan to be his son. 15. It It It is is is further further further contended contended contended by by by earned l learned l counsel counsel for for the the respondents/defendants /defendants that in the very first line of cross chief that in the very first line of cross-examination-in-chief DW5 very categorically mentioned about his relationship with Hari Ram as that of DW5 very categorically mentioned about his relationship with Hari Ram as that of DW5 very categorically mentioned about his relationship with Hari Ram as that of DW5 very categorically mentioned about his relationship with Hari Ram as that of nephew and uncle and DW5 was never cross examined on the said aspect neither nephew and uncle and DW5 was never cross examined on the said aspect neither nephew and uncle and DW5 was never cross examined on the said aspect neither nephew and uncle and DW5 was never cross examined on the said aspect neither even a suggestion was put to him in this regard. Thus learned counsel for the even a suggestion was put to him in this regard. Thus learned counsel for the even a suggestion was put to him in this regard. Thus learned counsel for the even a suggestion was put to him in this regard. Thus learned counsel for the defendants submits that once the relationship between DW5 Lal respondents-defendants submits that once the relationship between DW5 Lal defendants submits that once the relationship between DW5 Lal defendants submits that once the relationship between DW5 Lal Chand and Hari Ram was that of nephew and uncle; the deposition of Lal Chand Chand and Hari Ram was that of nephew and uncle; the deposition of Lal Chand Chand and Hari Ram was that of nephew and uncle; the deposition of Lal Chand Chand and Hari Ram was that of nephew and uncle; the deposition of Lal Chand on the aspect of relationship between Hari Ram and Manbhari & Ude on the aspect of relationship betw Bhan was een Hari Ram and Manbhari & Ude Bhan was required to be believed. required to be believed. 16. arned counsel for the respondent referring to para No. 19 of the Learned counsel for the respondent referring to para No. 19 of the arned counsel for the respondent referring to para No. 19 of the arned counsel for the respondent referring to para No. 19 of the judgments of the Appellate Court submits that plea regarding contradiction of the judgments of the Appellate Court submits that plea regarding contradiction of the judgments of the Appellate Court submits that plea regarding contradiction of the judgments of the Appellate Court submits that plea regarding contradiction of the pleadings of the respondents was dealt with in detail by the learned First Appellate pleadings of the respondents was dealt with in detail by the learned First Appellate pleadings of the respondents was dealt with in detail by the learned First Appellate pleadings of the respondents was dealt with in detail by the learned First Appellate in fact there was consistency in the pleadings made by the Court while holding that in fact there was consistency in the pleadings made by the in fact there was consistency in the pleadings made by the Court while holding that defendants and there was no contradiction in the pleadings as upon a respondents-defendants and there was no contradiction in the pleadings as upon a defendants and there was no contradiction in the pleadings as upon a defendants and there was no contradiction in the pleadings as upon a conjoint reading of both the pleadings it was clear that Smt. Manbhari during her conjoint reading of both the pleadings it was clear that Smt. Manbhari during her conjoint reading of both the pleadings it was clear that Smt. Manbhari during her conjoint reading of both the pleadings it was clear that Smt. Manbhari during her so as to contract second marriage with lifetime gave consent to Hari Ram so as to contract second marriage with so as to contract second marriage with lifetime gave consent to Hari Ram Manbhari as they were not having any male child. Manbhari as they were not having any male child. Manbhari as they were not having any male child. Findings 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1998 (O&M) and RSA-1469-1998 1998 (O&M) RSA-2101-1998 (O&M) -7- 18. Trial Court, while discarding vital documentary and oral The Trial Court, while discarding vital documentary and oral Trial Court, while discarding vital documentary and oral The evidence, erred in law by selectively extracting portions of testimony and ignoring evidence, erred in law by selectively extracting portions of testimony and ignoring evidence, erred in law by selectively extracting portions of testimony and ignoring evidence, erred in law by selectively extracting portions of testimony and ignoring the overall weight of evidence. The finding that the defendants failed to prove their the overall weight of evidence. The finding that the defendants failed to prove their the overall weight of evidence. The finding that the defendants failed to prove their the overall weight of evidence. The finding that the defendants failed to prove their misreading of evidence. In contrast, the Lower relationship is thus based on misreading of evidence. In contrast, the Lower misreading of evidence. In contrast, the Lower relationship is thus based on Appellate Court has minutely examined Appellate Court has minutely examined Appellate Court has minutely examined Appellate Court has minutely examined the depositions of witnesses, the depositions of witnesses, the depositions of witnesses, the depositions of witnesses, contemporaneous documents like the birth register and voter lists, and the conduct contemporaneous documents like the birth register and voter lists, and the conduct contemporaneous documents like the birth register and voter lists, and the conduct contemporaneous documents like the birth register and voter lists, and the conduct relationship stood of family members and villagers. Its conclusion that the relationship stood of family members and villagers. Its conclusion that the of family members and villagers. Its conclusion that the established is supported by cogent reasoning. established is supported by cogent reasoning. 19. The learned Lower Appellate Court scrutinised the evidence on The learned Lower Appellate Court scrutinised the evidence on The learned Lower Appellate Court scrutinised the evidence on The learned Lower Appellate Court scrutinised the evidence on record. It was noted that the relationship of Bidamo record. It was noted that the relationship of with Hari Ram as his daughter Bidamo with Hari Ram as his daughter question that fell for adjudication was was admitted by the defendants. Thus, the question that fell for adjudication was question that fell for adjudication was was admitted by the defendants. Thus, the whether Manbhari was the legally hari was the legally wedded wife of Hari Ram and Ude Ram his wedded wife of Hari Ram and Ude Ram his legitimate son. 20. The Lower Appellate Court has rightly The Lower Appellate Court observed that the onus of Issue rightly observed that the onus of Issue i herself entered the witness No.1A was rightly placed on the defendants. Manbhari herself entered the witness No.1A was rightly placed on the defendants. Man No.1A was rightly placed on the defendants. Man box and deposed that she had married Hari Ram soon after Independence and that box and deposed that she had married Hari Ram soon after Independence and that box and deposed that she had married Hari Ram soon after Independence and that box and deposed that she had married Hari Ram soon after Independence and that Ude Ram was born two half years later. In corroboration, reliance was Ram was born two-and-a-half years later. In corroboration, reliance was half years later. In corroboration, reliance was ari Ram on placed on the birth register, Ex.D5, recording that a son was born to Hari Ram on placed on the birth register, Ex.D5, recording that a son was born to H placed on the birth register, Ex.D5, recording that a son was born to H 28.12.1954. Independent witnesses, namely, Jana 28.12.1954. Independent witnesses, namely DW3, deposed Jana DW2 and Huma DW3, deposed that they had attended the marriage of Manbhari with Hari Ram some that they had attended the marriage of Man years hari with Hari Ram some 40 years , and that they had always been regarded as husband and wife. ago, and that they had always been regarded as husband and wife. , and that they had always been regarded as husband and wife. 21. counsel for the appellant while relying upon the Learned senior counsel for the appellant while relying upon the counsel for the appellant while relying upon the Learned
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 August 27, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document