Whether a person can prove that he is a tenant of immovable property based on the entry of his name in Electoral Roll?

Re: Electoral Roll (Ex. 74):

22. The Electoral Roll (Ex. 74) showed the Respondents as husband and wife and they were staying in the premises No. 289 in the year 1991. The appellate court held that Ex. 74 showed the Respondents as the residents of premises No. 289 in the year 1991 and if the second Respondent was a mere licensee and if there was no marriage solemnized between her and the first Respondent, the name of first Respondent would not have been recorded as husband in Ex. 74. From this the first appellate court inferred that the second Respondent was not a mere licensee and Appellants had failed to prove that the first Respondent was not the husband of the second Respondent.

23. The Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a tenant or as a licensee. It may at best show that the person was residing in the premises. The fact that both Respondents were residing in the premises had never been disputed. If they represented that they were husband and wife, the electoral roll will reflect the same. The inference drawn by the first appellate court from the electoral roll, that second Respondent was not a mere licensee, is totally illogical and unsustainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011 

Decided On: 30.09.2011

 Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare  Vs. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty)

Print Page

Whether presumption of marriage can be rebutted by oral evidence?

 The dispute is whether Muktabai Shankar Sutar was the wedded wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar or she was the kept mistress of deceased Shankar Kondi Sutar. According to the plaintiff, she was kept mistress of Shankar Kondi Sutar and according to the defendants she was wedded second wife of deceased Shankar Kondi Sutar after the death of first wife Akkatai. When Shankar Kondi Sutar resided at Bambawade she was residing with Shankar Kondi Sutar from about 1954-55 till his death on 3.6.1977. Her name was entered in the Ration Card and Voters List as wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar. Shankar Kondi Sutar had purchased open plot at Bambawade and built two houses bearing Grampanchayat House No. 25 and 26. House no. 25 is the house in dispute. In the house 26 plaintiff No. 1 resided separately from his father. Now the first question to be decided is whether the defendant no. 1 is the wedded second wife of deceased Shankar Kondi Sutar or she is the kept mistress of Shankar Kondi Sutar. There is no oral evidence on this point except that of plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 1 as P.W. No. 1 denies that the defendant no. 1 is legally wedded wife. Plaintiff no. 1 is interested in denying her status as legally wedded wife. The voters list of Bambawade, the Ration Card of Shankar Kondi Sutar at Bambawade are pressed as the most reliable evidence as in both of them she has been described as the wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar. After the death of Shakar Kondi Sutar the name of defendant no. 1 is entered in the G.P . of Bambawade as owner of the suit house being wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar. The voters' list and Ration Card were prepared during the life time of Shankar Kondi Sutar and to his knowledge the defendant no. 1 has been shown as wife and the entry in the GP Bambawade of the Suit House as house of defendant no. 1. The above public documents fully support the case of defendant no. 1 that she is the wedded wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar. It is to be noted that the electoral roll is a public document and is prepared by a public servant in discharge of his public duty and the same is relevant under section 35 of the Evidence Act.

22. The Apex Court in the matter of Badri Prasad v. Dy.Director of consolidation and Others (Supra) held that for a man and woman living together for 50 years held a strong presumption of marriage between them. It is not necessary for them to bring forward witnesses to ceremonies of their marriage. The Apex Court in the matter of Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary (Supra) held that it is equally true that there can be marriage acceptable in law according to customs which do not insist on performance of such rites. Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in the matter of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others (Supra).

                                                    
                 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.364 OF 1992
WITH
CROSS­OBJECTIONS (ST). NO.18331 OF 1992

Bhikaji Bandu Sutar & Lohar Vs. Rangarao Shankar Sutar & Ors.
Dated;8-12-2014
CORAM : K.K.TATED, J.
Citation: 2015(1)ABR768, 2015(2)MhLj410

Print Page

Whether Electoral roll can prove that lady was Lawfully wedded to man?

An extract in the Electoral Roll cannot be proof of the fact that the 1st opponent was the lawfully wedded husband of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has also relied upon a photograph Exhibit 36 which is the photograph of the 1st petitioner and the 1st opponent, taken some years ago. Now this photograph has been admitted in evidence through the 1st petitioner. However, before a photograph could be admitted in evidence it is necessary that the person who took the photograph should be examined and such a person should produce the negative and no positive print or enlargement could be admitted in evidence without the negative being produced in the first instance.
Bombay High Court

Sabera Begum And Ors. vs G.M. Ansari on 15 December, 1978

Bench: D Mehta

Print Page