Summary and Analysis of Chowdamma D by LR vs Venkatappa D by LRs

1. Heading of the Judgment

Chowdamma (D) by LR & Anr. vs Venkatappa (D) by LRs & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 11330 of 2011, Supreme Court of India, decided on August 25, 2025.
(2025 INSC 1038)

Citation: Chowdamma (D) by LR & Anr. vs Venkatappa (D) by LRs & Anr., (2025) INSC 1038.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions and principles:

• Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with the relevance of opinion on relationships. It states that the opinion of a person who has special means of knowledge about a family relationship, expressed through their conduct, is a relevant fact for the court to form an opinion on that relationship.

• Presumption of Marriage: A legal principle that presumes a valid marriage exists when a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period. This presumption is rebuttable but places a heavy burden on the party denying the marriage to prove it is invalid.

• Burden and Onus of Proof: The judgment discusses the distinction between the initial burden of proof (which lies on the plaintiff) and the shifting onus of proof (which moves to the defendant once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case).

• Adverse Inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act: The court can presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it.

• Revenue Records: The court reaffirmed that entries in revenue records are for fiscal purposes like tax collection and do not confer or prove title to a property.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: The legal heirs of Chowdamma (the second wife) and her son, Balachandrappa. They were the defendants in the original suit.
  Respondents: The legal heirs of Venkatappa and Siddamma, who claimed to be the children of Dasabovi from his first wife. They were the plaintiffs in the original suit.

• Core Legal Question: Whether the plaintiffs (respondents) successfully proved that their mother was the legally wedded first wife of Dasabovi, thereby entitling them to a share in his ancestral property.

• Property in Dispute: Ancestral lands and a house in Devigere and Kallahally village, Karnataka.

• Lower Court Decisions:
  Trial Court: Dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the marriage of their mother to Dasabovi.
  High Court of Karnataka: Allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's judgment, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring their right to a share in the property.

• Supreme Court's Decision: Dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants (Chowdamma's heirs) and upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming the plaintiffs' right to partition.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background and Facts

The case involved a dispute over the ancestral property of Dasabovi. The plaintiffs claimed that their mother, Bheemakka, was the first wife of Dasabovi and that they were his legitimate children. They argued that after Dasabovi married Chowdamma (the second wife), Bheemakka and her children were forced out of the household. Despite this, they claimed to have maintained ties and a right to the property.

The defendants, Chowdamma and her son, completely denied that Dasabovi was ever married to Bheemakka. They claimed that Chowdamma was the only wife and that the property rightfully belonged only to them. Their names were also recorded in the revenue records.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs. Its reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles.

1. Testimony of PW2 (Hanumanthappa) and Section 50 of the Evidence Act:
The most crucial evidence was the testimony of PW2, Hanumanthappa, a 75-year-old independent witness from the plaintiffs' village. The Court found him credible because:

• He had "special means of knowledge" as a long-time resident who was familiar with both families.

• He gave a detailed account of Dasabovi's marriage to Bheemakka, the birth of the plaintiffs, the subsequent marriage to Chowdamma, and the ousting of the first family.

• He stated that Dasabovi continued to visit the plaintiffs and their mother even after they moved out.

• His testimony was unchallenged during cross-examination and free from any material contradictions.

The Court held that this direct, firsthand account based on personal knowledge was perfectly admissible under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the relationship.

2. Presumption of Valid Marriage:
The Court applied the well-established legal presumption in favor of marriage. When a man and woman live together for a long time as husband and wife, the law presumes a valid marriage exists. The burden to disprove this presumption lies heavily on the person challenging it.

The testimony of PW2 established that Dasabovi and Bheemakka had lived together as husband and wife and had children. The defendants (Chowdamma's side) failed to provide any strong evidence to rebut this presumption. They only offered a bare denial, which was not enough to discharge their heavy burden.

3. Failure of Defendant No.1 to Testify:
The Court drew a very strong adverse inference against the defendants because Chowdamma (Defendant No.1) never entered the witness box to testify.

• She was the central figure in the dispute and the only person who could have directly rebutted the plaintiffs' claims about the family structure.

• The excuse that she was too old and had arthritis was rejected because the record showed she was physically present in court on several days during the trial.

• The Court ruled that her deliberate avoidance of giving evidence meant that if she had testified, her testimony would have been unfavorable to her own case. This significantly weakened the defendants' position.

4. Other Factors:

• Genealogical Charts: The chart submitted by the plaintiffs (Ex.P-7), which included both families, was consistent with PW2's testimony and served as corroborative evidence. The defendants' chart (Ex.D-2), which omitted the plaintiffs entirely, was found to be less credible.

• Revenue Records: The Court reaffirmed that revenue records are not proof of ownership title. They are merely maintained for collecting taxes. Therefore, the fact that the defendants' names were in these records did not help them prove that the plaintiffs had no right to the property.

• Shifting Onus of Proof: The Court held that the plaintiffs first discharged their initial burden of proof through the strong testimony of PW2. Once this was done, the onus shifted to the defendants to disprove the marriage. The defendants failed to meet this shifted onus as they produced no credible evidence.

Conclusion and Final Order

The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs had successfully proved that their mother was the lawfully wedded first wife of Dasabovi and that they were his legitimate children. Therefore, they had a rightful claim to a share in his ancestral property.

The Court found no error in the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court:

• Dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants (Chowdamma's legal heirs).

• Upheld the High Court's decree ordering the partition of the suit property and granting the plaintiffs their rightful share.