[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant vs Smt. Ram Bai on 19 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
I. RSA-600-1993
Balwant (deceased) thr LRs and Others
. . . . Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Ram Bai and Others . . . . Respondents
II. RSA-601-1993
Balwant (deceased) thr LRs and Another
. . . . Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Ram Bai and Others . . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 12.01.2026
Pronounced on: 19.01.2026
Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate for
LRs of appellant No.2.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Haripal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated
19.09.1992, passed by the learned Addi.onal District Judge, Hisar, whereby the
two separate judgments both dated 29.04.1989 rendered by the learned Trial
Court in two connected suits were reversed.
1 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
2. Brief Facts : One Prema had four sons, namely Sodagar, Sishpal,
Ganga Ram and Ghana Ram. Ganga Ram had renounced the worldly long back
and became a hermit. Sishpal died issue-less on 20.08.1978. His other two
brothers, Sodagar and Ghana Ram, had pre-deceased him. The plain.ffs Bal-
want Singh and others (appellants herein) are the legal heirs of Ghana Ram,
whereas defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Sodagar. The dispute per-
tains to 91 Kanal 10 Marla of land, which admi9edly stood in the ownership of
deceased Sishpal.
3.1 Plain ffs' Case : According to the plain.ffs, a;er the death of Sish-
pal, they along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 came into possession of the suit land
as co-sharers, being the legal heirs of Sishpal. However, defendant No.2 began
proclaiming himself to be the exclusive owner of the suit land. On inspec.ng the
revenue record, the plain.ffs discovered that defendant Nos.2 to 5, in a clandes-
.ne manner, had produced defendant No.1 Smt. Ram Bai before the revenue
authori.es and, by falsely projec.ng her as the widow of Sishpal, succeeded in
ge=ng muta.on No.2876 sanc.oned regarding the inheritance of Sishpal in her
favour. The plain.ffs asserted that Smt. Ram Bai was never married to Sishpal
and, therefore, was not his widow. It was further alleged that therea;er, defen-
dant No.3 got executed a fic..ous mortgage deed pertaining to 24 Kanal out of
the suit land, while defendant No.2 procured a forged and fic..ous Will in his
favour allegedly executed by defendant No.1.
3.2 The plain.ffs challenged the muta.on of inheritance, the mort-
gage deed as well as the Will, and sought a decree of declara.on to the effect
that they along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 were co-owners in possession of the
suit land as legal heirs of Sishpal; that defendant No.1 had no right or concern
with the suit land; and that muta.on No.2876 dated 08.11.1978 was illegal,
void, having been sanc.oned on the basis of fraud and misrepresenta.on. They
also sought a decree of permanent injunc.on restraining the defendants from
interfering in their possession. In the alterna.ve, they prayed for a decree of
2 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
joint possession to the extent of 5/9th share in case they were found not to be
in possession.
4. Defence : The defendants raised preliminary objec.ons regarding
maintainability, estoppel and locus standi of the plain.ffs. On merits, it was
pleaded that Smt. Ram Bai was the legally wedded wife and widow of deceased
Sishpal and, therefore, was the sole heir en.tled to inherit his property. The mu-
ta.on of inheritance, the mortgage deed and the Will were all defended as valid
and genuine. It was further pleaded that the plain.ffs had full knowledge of the
muta.on, mortgage and Will from the very beginning and, therefore, were
estopped from challenging the same. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly
prayed for.
5. In replica.on, the plain.ffs reiterated their stand and controverted
the defence set up by the defendants.
Second Suit by Smt. Ram Bai
6. Independently, Smt. Ram Bai filed a separate suit against Balwant
Singh and others, seeking a decree of permanent injunc.on, claiming herself to
be owner in possession of the suit land and alleging interference by the defen-
dants therein.
7. In the wri9en statement filed in that suit, Balwant Singh and oth-
ers reiterated the same stand as taken in their earlier suit, specifically denying
that Smt. Ram Bai was the widow of deceased Sishpal.
8. Trial Court findings : The learned Trial Court framed separate is-
sues in both the suits, recorded evidence, and vide two separate judgments
dated 29.04.1989, decreed the suit filed by Balwant Singh and others, while dis-
missing the suit filed by Smt. Ram Bai.
9. First Appellate Court Findings : Aggrieved, Smt. Ram Bai filed two
separate appeals. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-apprecia.on of the
oral and documentary evidence, reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the
3 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
core issue and held that Smt. Ram Bai was the widow of deceased Sishpal. It
was further held that she had rightly inherited the suit land vide muta.on
No.2876 dated 08.11.1978 and that the plain.ffs as well as defendant Nos.2 to 5
had no right or concern with the suit property. She was also held to be the
owner in possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit filed by Balwant
Singh and others was dismissed, whereas the suit filed by Smt. Ram Bai for per-
manent injunc.on was decreed vide a common judgment dated 19.09.1992.
10. Present Appeals : Assailing the aforesaid common judgment, the
present two appeals have been filed by Balwant Singh and others, who were
plain.ffs in the first suit, and defendants in the second suit.
11. Submissions : The sole conten.on raised by learned counsel for
the appellants is that the learned First Appellate Court commi9ed a grave error
in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court on the issue of marital
status of Smt. Ram Bai, and that the evidence on record does not establish that
she was ever married to deceased Sishpal. It is urged that the muta.on of inher-
itance in her favour was illegally sanc.oned.
12. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the re-
spondents has supported the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.
13. Analysis by this Court : This Court has considered submissions of
learned counsel for the par.es and has carefully appraised the en.re record.
14. While re-apprecia.ng the evidence on record, the learned First
Appellate Court has no.ced that defendant No.1 Smt. Ram Bai entered the wit-
ness box as DW-14 and categorically deposed that her marriage with deceased
Sishpal had taken place about 30 years prior, in accordance with Hindu rites and
ceremonies, at a Shiv temple situated in village Bijjan Nagar (Orissa). She further
tes.fied that a;er the marriage, she resided with Sishpal at village Kaimari as
his wife, and both lived together as husband and wife for several decades,
though no child was born out of the wedlock. She named the persons who were
4 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
present at the .me of marriage, including Shri Pitru, Om Prakash, Gurjan Maha-
jan, Biru Pandit, and stated that Biru Pandit had conducted the pheras cere-
mony, with the presence of the old priest of the Shiv temple. The learned First
Appellate Court has rightly observed that considering the fact that Smt. Ram Bai
was about 70 years of age and blind in both eyes at the .me of her deposi.on,
it would be wholly unrealis.c to expect her to produce or trace witnesses to a
marriage that had taken place three decades earlier. Significantly, she was not
confronted during cross-examina.on on the ques.on whether the persons
named by her were alive or available.
15. The First Appellate Court further invoked the presump.on under
Sec.on 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits the Court to
presume the existence of facts that ordinarily follow the common course of
natural events and human conduct. It was observed that the consistent and long
cohabita.on of Smt. Ram Bai with Sishpal as husband and wife, coupled with
public recogni.on of their marital status, jus.fied drawing a presump.on in
favour of a valid marriage.
16. In this regard, the tes.mony of DW-1 Ram Partap was relied upon,
who stated that he was about 48 years old and had been seeing Smt. Ram Bai
residing with Sishpal since the .me he a9ained majority, meaning thereby that
the couple had lived together for nearly 30 years. DW-3 Khemaram, a member
of the Panchayat of village Kaimari, also supported the case of the defendants
by affirming that Smt. Ram Bai was the widow of Sishpal and that they were
married about 30-35 years prior. Similar tes.mony was tendered by DW-4
Ladhu Ram, Lambardar of village Kaimari, and DW-5 Mahlu Ram, the real cousin
of deceased Sishpal, who stated that he always treated Smt. Ram Bai as his
bhabhi.
17. Further corrobora.on came from DW-6 Tara Mohan, an ex-member
Panchayat aged about 70-75 years, DW-7 Ram Mur., another Panchayat
member, who deposed that Smt. Ram Bai had been residing as the wife of
Sishpal for the last 20-23 years, and DW-8 Purkha Ram, a resident of the same
5 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
village. The tes.mony of these independent and natural witnesses, belonging to
the same village and social milieu, lends strong assurance to the defendants'
case.
18. As no.ced by the First Appellate Court, the plain.ffs' witnesses
failed to rebut this consistent body of evidence. PW-1 Balwant, PW-2 Ram
Sarup, PW-3 Thandi Ram and PW-4 Siri Ram merely denied the marital
rela.onship but did not dispute the admi9ed fact that the ra.on card and voter
records of Smt. Ram Bai were joint with those of deceased Sishpal. Even PW-5
Dharampal, a witness produced by the plain.ffs themselves, admi9ed in cross-
examina.on that Smt. Ram Bai had been residing in the house of deceased
Sishpal for the last 10-15 years and could not deny that she lived there as his
wife. Such admissions further weaken the plain.ffs' case and for.fy the
inference drawn by the Appellate Court.
19. Apart from oral evidence, the First Appellate Court rightly placed
reliance upon documentary evidence of unimpeachable character. The voter
lists of village Kaimari (Ex.PX and Ex.PX/1) prepared in 1966 and 1970, record
Smt. Ram Bai as the wife of Sishpal. Another voter list of the year 1981 (Ex.DW-
9/A) records her as the widow of Sishpal. These entries were made by public
servants in discharge of official du.es and are admissible under Sec.on 35 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 carrying a presump.on of correctness.
20. Further, DW-2 Chhabil Dass, Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies
Department, proved the ra.on card (Ex.D4), which also records Smt. Ram Bai as
the wife of deceased Sishpal. Addi.onally, the tes.mony of DW-12 Devraj
Sharma established that Smt. Ram Bai was granted old age pension by the
Haryana Government, a;er due verifica.on of her marital status, as reflected in
Ex.PX/3.
21. It also emerged from the record that upon the death of Ganga Ram,
another brother of Sishpal who had renounced worldly life, his inheritance was
sanc.oned vide muta.on dated 15.05.1986 (Ex.PX/2), wherein the share of
6 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
Sishpal was shown to have devolved upon Smt. Ram Bai. Further corrobora.on
was provided by DW-13 Jagdish Chander, an official from the office of Tehsildar,
Hisar, who proved that compensa.on for crop damage rela.ng to Rabi 1982,
including part of the suit land, was paid to Smt. Ram Bai as owner in possession.
22. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence, the learned First
Appellate Court was fully jus.fied in drawing a presump.on of valid marriage
under Sec.on 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence on record
clearly establishes that Smt. Ram Bai and deceased Sishpal lived together for a
long number of years as husband and wife, were so treated by the villagers and
society at large, and were recognized as such in official and public records.
23. The legal posi.on in this regard is no longer res integra. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari (AIR 1952 SC 231) held
that con.nuous cohabita.on of a man and a woman as husband and wife and
their recogni.on as such by society may raise a presump.on of marriage,
though the presump.on is rebu9able. Subsequently, in Badri Prasad v. Deputy
Director of Consolida on and ors. (1978) 3 SCC 527), the Supreme Court went a
step further and held that a strong presump.on arises in favour of wedlock,
where par.es have lived together for a long period as husband and wife, and
that a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to displace such presump.on.
24. The principle was reaffirmed in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v.
Suru2ayan and ors. (1994) 1 SCC 460), wherein it was held that where a man
and a woman live together con.nuously for a long .me, the law presumes that
they are legally married, unless the contrary is clearly established by cogent
evidence. The Supreme Court cau.oned that such presump.on cannot be
displaced on the basis of conjectures, surmises or feeble evidence.
25. Again, in Tulsa and ors. v. Durgha ya and ors. (2008) 4 SCC 520),
a;er examining Sec.ons 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court
held that where partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and
wife, there would be a presump.on in favour of wedlock, and the burden to
7 of 8
RSA-600-1993
RSA-601-1993
rebut such presump.on lies heavily upon the person denying the marital
rela.onship.
26. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid se9led principles, the findings
recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are fully supported by law. In the
present case, apart from long and con.nuous cohabita.on spanning nearly
three decades, there is overwhelming oral evidence of independent village
witnesses, consistent public recogni.on, and contemporaneous documentary
evidence in the form of voter lists, ra.on card, pension records and revenue
documents, all recording Smt. Ram Bai as the wife or widow of deceased
Sishpal. The plain.ffs not only failed to rebut this evidence, but their own
witnesses made admissions which further strengthened the defendants' case.
27. This Court, therefore, finds no illegality, perversity or misreading of
evidence in the conclusions arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court. The
presump.on drawn in favour of a valid marriage is well-founded, the burden to
rebut the same has not been discharged by the appellants, and the finding that
Smt. Ram Bai was the lawful wife and widow of deceased Sishpal, en.tled to
inherit his estate, calls for no interference.
28. Consequently, both the appeals being devoid of any merit are
hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
19.01.2026
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Uploaded on.: 19.01.2026
8 of 8
