MANU/SC/0596/2010

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2010(9)ADJ263, AIR2010SC 2933, 2010(6)ALD178(SC ), 2010 6 AWC 5637SC , 2010(5)C TC 503, 2010(II)C LR(SC )660,
2011(1)HLR100, JT2010(8)SC 515, 2011(1)RC R(C ivil)152, 2010(8)SC ALE406, (2010)9SC C 209, [2010]10SC R30, 2011(1)UC 771

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004
Decided On: 13.08.2010
Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs. Rajni Kant and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Case Category:
LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
JUDGMENT
B.S. Chauhan, J.
1 . This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19334 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in view
of the concurrent findings recorded by the three statutory authorities under the Statute.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Chandra Deo Singh was
recorded as the khatedar of Khata Nos. 485, 620, 146 and 66 of Village Bhojapur and
Khata No. 21 of Village Kanshari. The respondents in appeal, Rajni Kant and Anjani
Kumar claimed themselves to be the sons of said Chandra Deo Singh and filed
objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Consolidation Act') and they asked for inclusion of their names as his
heirs. Another objection was filed by the appellants in the disputed khata submitting
that the said respondents had no right or interest in the suit land, not being the sons of
late Chandra Deo Singh and the appellants were his only legal heirs. The Consolidation
Officer having framed large number of issues and having provided full opportunity of
hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and make submissions, passed an order
dated 8.11.2000, allowing the objections filed by the respondents and further directing
to record their names. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the appeal before the
Settlement Officer which had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2001.
Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Revision No. 958 under Section 48 of the
Consolidation Act which also stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated
15.3.2003.
3. The appellants further agitated the issue, challenging the said judgments and orders
by filing Writ Petition No. 19334/2003 which has also been dismissed vide judgment
and order dated 14.8.2003. Hence, this appeal.
4. Shri Mahabir Singh, Ld. Senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, has submitted
that mother of the appellants, Smt. Sonbarsa died in 1945. Chandra Deo Singh, father
of the appellants remained in Jail as a Freedom Fighter from 1945-47. There is nothing
on record to show that appellants' father got married with the mother of the
respondents Smt. Shakuntala in accordance with law. At the most she could be

25-01-2024 (Page 1 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University

concubine of Chandra Deo Singh and being illegitimate children, the respondents have
no right to inherit any share in the suit land. More so, the respondents were born prior
to having started live-in-relationship between Chandra Deo Singh and said Smt.
Shakuntala as is evident from the School Register and School leaving certificate
produced by the appellants before the statutory authorities as well as before the High
Court and this Court. The said documents had not been properly appreciated by any of
the authorities. The findings of facts recorded by the statutory authorities are perverse
being contrary to evidence on record produced by the appellants. The High Court did
not make any attempt to appreciate the evidence at all. Findings so recorded, are
perverse, being contrary to the evidence on record. The appeal has merit and thus,
deserves to be allowed.
5 . Per contra, Shri Abhay Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that three statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act have recorded the
concurrent finding of fact that Chandra Deo Singh and Smt. Shakuntala were living
together for a long time. Their relationship as husband and wife had been accepted by
the Society as well as the family members. In many official documents, name of
Chandra Deo Singh has been shown as the father of the respondents. In the beginning,
Chandra Deo Singh did not disclose the relationship with Smt. Shakuntala because of
social conditions that the Society may not accept their relationship even after the death
of his wife Smt. Sonbarsa. Both the respondents were born out of their relationship.
Appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6 . We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
In fact, statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act enjoys the powers of the Civil
Court as well as the Revenue Court as all matters pending before the Civil Court stand
abated once a notification of initiation of proceedings under the Consolidation Act is
issued. Authorities under the Consolidation Act have been conferred powers of the Civil
Court to adjudicate upon any matter of title or right to inherit the property etc.
Undoubtedly, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by three authorities under
the Consolidation Act after appreciating the entire evidence on record. The authorities
have recorded following findings of facts:
(I) Chandra Deo Singh was having relationship with Smt. Shakuntala for long
time;
(II) After the death of his wife Sonbarsa in 1945, Chandra Deo Singh had live-
in-relationship with Smt. Shakuntala and started living as husband and wife;
(III) Chandra Deo Singh started living with Smt. Shakuntala in a different
village namely, Murdah in 1960-1961.
(IV) Their relationship continued till the death of Chandra Deo Singh on
31.12.1979 and therefore, they lived together as husband and wife for a long
period;
(V) The respondents and other four daughters were born out of this relationship
between Chandra Deo Singh and Smt. Shakuntala; and
(VI) Their relationship as husband and wife had been accepted not only by the
Society but also by the family members.

25-01-2024 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University

7 . The aforesaid concurrent findings of facts recorded by the authorities under the
Consolidation Act have been affirmed by the High Court though without having full-
fledged appreciation of evidence. The High Court reached the conclusion that findings of
facts recorded by three courts below did not require re-appreciation of evidence and
further that no interference was required with same in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8 . Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants persuaded
us to have recourse to the unusual procedure submitting that in spite of concurrent
findings of facts by courts below, this Court must appreciate the evidence itself for the
reason that findings of facts so recorded are perverse. He has placed a very heavy
reliance on the documents the appellants have submitted and contended that the said
documents are admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter called the 'Evidence Act') and mere reading of those documents would not
leave any doubt that the findings recorded by the courts- below are contrary to the
evidence on record. In order to substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on
large number of judgments of this Court.
However, before entering into any law, we would like to examine the documents which
are so heavily relied by learned Senior counsel. The documents so placed on record are
basically School Leaving Certificates, School Registers, Voter Lists and other documents
prepared by the authorised persons in exercise of their official duty. Annexure P-1
(Colly) is the copy of Electoral Rolls for Legislative Assembly of the three consecutive
elections. The particulars of Smt. Shakuntala had been shown therein as under:

9 . These entries are very relevant to determine the controversy regarding the date of
birth of the respondents and other family members. As per the first document in
Annex.P-1 (Colly), Smt. Shakuntala should have been born in 1941 as she was 34 years
of age in 1975. As per the 2nd list she should have been born in 1943 as she was 36
years of age in 1979. Immediately, after one year in 1980 she became 41 years of age
and according to this document she should have been born in 1939.
There is so much inconsistency that these documents cannot be read together for the
reason that in 1979 if Smt. Shakuntala was 36 years of age, in 1980 she had been
shown 41 years of age. So, after expiry of one year, her age had gone up by 5 years.
10. Annexure P-3 has been filed as the copy of the report prepared by the Tahsildar in
view of the order passed by the competent court dated 31.7.1984. According to that
Asha Devi, daughter of Smt. Shakuntala and sister of respondents was born on
7.7.1951. Therefore, if Smt. Shakuntala as per the first document was born in 1941,
question of giving birth to Asha could not arise at the age of 10 years. If we go by the
second document of 1979, Smt. Shakuntala was born in 1943 and she could not have
given birth to Asha in 1951 at the age of 8 years. According to the third document, Smt.
Shakuntala was 41 years of age in 1980. So, at the time of birth of Asha, Smt.
Shakuntala was 12 years of age. Same is the position in respect of Savitri, another
daughter of Smt. Shakuntala. As per Annexure P-4, School Leaving Certificate, her date
of birth has been recorded as 1.9.1949. If this document is taken to be true and age of

25-01-2024 (Page 3 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University

Smt. Shankutala is taken from Annex.P-1 (Colly), we will have to record a finding of
fact that Smt. Shakuntala gave birth to Savitri at the age of 6 years.
1 1 . Now we come to the most material evidence (Annex. P-8) submitted by the
appellants in respect of age of Rajni Kant, respondent No. 1. The said document is a
Certificate for practicing Unani medicine and therein his date of birth has been shown as
15.7.1940. If this document is taken to be true and compared with the document
contained in Annexure P-1 (Colly) wherein Smt. Shakuntala had been shown 34 years of
age in 1975 and 36 years of age in 1979, it becomes arithmetically clear that Smt.
Shakuntala had given birth to him even prior to her own birth.
12. The aforesaid documents placed on record by the appellants and so heavily relied
upon by them, if taken into consideration, they would simply lead not only to
improbabilities and impossibilities but absurdity also. It is most unfortunate that none
of the courts below had analysed these documents in this manner while taking them
into consideration and none of the lawyers have thought it proper to bring these most
glaring facts to the notice of the courts.
13. In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Radha Krishna Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0303/1983 :
AIR 1983 SC 684, this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under:
Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another -
these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet
may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil....
Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of
witnesses and documents and has "a statutory flavour in that it is given not merely by
an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would
indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight.
The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose
sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little.
14. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained
therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by
the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar
MANU/SC/0137/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 326; Ram Murti v. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/0174/1970 : AIR 1970 SC 1029; Dayaram and Ors. v. Dawalatshah and Anr.
MANU/SC/0736/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 681; Harpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Himachal
Pradesh MANU/SC/0130/1980 : AIR 1981 SC 361; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of
U.P. MANU/SC/8161/2006 : (2006) 5 SCC 584; Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and
Anr. MANU/SC/8099/2008 : (2008) 13 SCC 133; Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj
MANU/SC/4428/2007 : AIR 2008 SC 632; and Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh
@Chhotu Singh and Anr. MANU/SC/0750/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 681. In these cases, it
has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned
official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require
corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to
whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof
required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases.
1 5 . Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter list or
family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be
admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The

25-01-2024 (Page 4 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University

State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0241/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 1625; and Santenu Mitra v.
State of West Bengal MANU/SC/1084/1998 : AIR 1999 SC 1587.
16. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised
in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section
35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The
authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood
recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School
Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of
proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.
17. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is
supported by unimpeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school
register/certificate stands belied by the unimpeachable evidence of reliable persons and
contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation,
Government Hospital/Nursing Home etc, the entry in the school register is to be
discarded. (Vide: Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors.
MANU/SC/0189/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit
MANU/SC/0052/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 1796; Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/2156/2005 : (2006) 1 SCC 283; and Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/0537/2010 : JT 2010 (7) SC 500).
1 8 . If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a
document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or
Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61, etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person
having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein.
(Vide: Updesh Kumar and Ors. v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0040/2001 : (2001)
2 SCC 524; and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh MANU/SC/0201/2005 : AIR 2005 SC
1868).
19. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr. MANU/SC/0310/2010 : (2010) 5 SCC 600,
this Court, placing reliance upon its earlier decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and
Anr. MANU/SC/2960/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2522, held that live-in-relationship is
permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex.
2 0 . In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi and Ors.
MANU/SC/0147/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 756, this Court held that if man and woman are
living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a
presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that they live as husband and wife
and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.
21. The courts have consistently held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and
against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a
number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable
evidence. (Vide: Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan MANU/PR/0068/1929 : AIR
1929 PC 135; Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumar MANU/SC/0077/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 231;
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan MANU/SC/0042/1994 : (1994) 1 SCC 460;
Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni MANU/SC/0340/1996
: (1996) 7 SCC 681; and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Ors.
MANU/SC/0064/2005 : (2005) 2 SCC 244).
22. In view of the above, the kind of material placed by the appellants on record cannot
be termed enough to disbelieve the claim of the respondents. The findings of facts
recorded by the courts below cannot be disturbed on this material. The appellants' case

25-01-2024 (Page 5 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University

has been that the respondents were born prior to 1960 i.e. prior to the year Chandra
Deo Singh started living with Smt. Shakuntala. As per the Annexure P1 (Colly), Smt.
Shakuntala was born near about 1941. If the documents filed by the appellants are
taken to be true, we will have to record a finding of fact that Smt. Shakuntala gave birth
to her two daughters, namely, Asha and Savitri, when she was only 5-6 years of age
and in case, the Certificate of Rajni Kant-respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure P8 is
taken to be true and is considered in the light of the documents contained in Annexure
P1 (Colly), it could be arithmetically clear that Smt. Shakuntala had given birth to Rajni
Kant, respondent No. 1 on 15.7.1940, i.e., even prior to her own birth in 1941. If all the
said documents are accepted, they would simply lead not only to improbabilities and
impossibilities but absurdity also. It is most unfortunate that none of the courts below
had analysed documents in correct perspective. The live-in- relationship if continued for
such a long time, cannot be termed in as "walk in and walk out" relationship and there
is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut.
23. In view of the above, the appeal does not present special facts and circumstances
which may warrant further re-appreciation of the evidence as the appeal is based on
totally unreliable/contradicting documents and not worth placing any reliance. It is
accordingly dismissed. No cost.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

25-01-2024 (Page 6 of 6) www.manupatra.com O. P. Jindal Global University