Supreme Court Re-Affirms Robust Presumption of Marriage under Section 50 Evidence Act and Draws Adverse Inference from Non-Appearance of Key Party

Commentary on Chowdamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Venkatappa (Dead) by Legal Representatives
2025 INSC 1038 (Supreme Court of India, 25 August 2025)

1. Introduction

This appeal before the Supreme Court arose out of a familial dispute over ancestral agricultural lands and a dwelling house in Karnataka. The core controversy was whether the plaintiffs – children of the deceased Dasabovi through his alleged first wife, Bheemakka alias Sathyakka – could prove a valid marriage between their parents, thereby entitling them to a half-share in the joint family property.

At trial (O.S. No. 102/2001) the Civil Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their mother’s marriage. The Karnataka High Court, on first appeal, reversed the decree, decreeing partition in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants (second wife Chowdamma and her son) appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

1. Long cohabitation, corroborated by the testimony of a village elder (PW-2), attracted a strong presumption of lawful marriage under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Once the plaintiffs discharged the initial burden, the onus shifted to the defendants, who produced no credible rebuttal.
3. Failure of defendant No. 1 (the second wife) to enter the witness box, despite repeated presence in court, justified an adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act.
4. Revenue entries are not proof of title or of marital status.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. concurring with Sanjay Karol, J.) affirmed the High Court’s decree for partition. Key findings were:

• The oral evidence of PW-2, a 75-year-old resident who personally knew the family for over five decades, satisfied the twin prerequisites of Section 50: (a) special means of knowledge and (b) opinion expressed by conduct.
• Exhibit P-7 (genealogical tree) corroborated PW-2’s version; defendants’ own chart (Ex. D-2) was self-serving and incomplete.
• Presumption of marriage from long cohabitation (Badri Prasad; Dinohamy; Mohabbat Ali) applied with full vigour; defendants failed to rebut it.
• Refusal of a crucial witness (defendant No. 1) to testify, without invoking Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC commissioning, warranted a presumption that her evidence would have been unfavourable.
• Consequently, plaintiffs proved their status as legitimate heirs and were entitled to half share in ancestral and subsequently acquired properties.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra (AIR 1959 SC 914) – Clarified ingredients of Section 50; Court used it to test PW-2’s eligibility as a competent “opinion witness”.
2. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh (1983 3 SCC 118) – Laid down cautionary principles for accepting oral pedigree evidence; Supreme Court applied them to vet PW-2’s testimony and Ex. P-7.
3. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978 3 SCC 527) & Dinohamy (PC 1927) – Recognised strong presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation; these cases supplied the normative framework.
4. Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan (PC 1929) – Same line as above, reinforcing legitimacy.
5. Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006 5 SCC 558) & Raghavamma v. Chenchamma (1964 SC) – Distinguished between burden and onus of proof; Court relied upon them to shift the evidentiary burden to defendants after plaintiffs made a prima facie case.
6. Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (1999 3 SCC 573) – Non-appearance in the witness box leads to an adverse inference; squarely applied to defendant No. 1.
7. Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007 6 SCC 186) – Revenue entries have only fiscal purpose; cited to discount defendants’ reliance on land records.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Unpacked

1. Section 50 Evidence Act
   • Plaintiffs needed to prove “relationship” (marriage) in absence of registration or direct documentary proof.
   • PW-2 satisfied the test of “special means of knowledge” – His lifelong familiarity with both branches of the family and observation of their conduct.
   • Court emphasised that opinion must be more than gossip; PW-2’s detailed, consistent account reflected personal knowledge, not hearsay.
2. Presumption of Marriage
   • Decades-long cohabitation, regular visits, community recognition = factual matrix triggering legal presumption.
   • Defendants’ rebuttal comprised bare denial; no documentary or circumstantial material (e.g., proof of different caste, contrary marriage entry, DNA, etc.).
   • Hence, presumption remained intact.
3. Burden vs. Onus
   • Plaintiffs discharged initial burden by PW-2 + genealogy + conduct evidence.
   • Onus shifted; silence of defendants and lack of counter-evidence meant they failed to discharge shifted onus.
4. Adverse Inference under Section 114(g)
   • Defendant No. 1’s personal knowledge was crucial.
   • Despite attendance in court, she did not testify and did not seek commission.
   • Court invoked presumption that her evidence would be unfavourable.
5. Revenue Records
   • Merely fiscal; cannot establish title or marital legitimacy.

3.3 Impact Assessment

The decision, though reaffirming existing principles, crystallises them into a single composite rule especially germane to partition suits and succession disputes:

Where proof of marriage depends on community perception rather than documents, credible Section 50 oral evidence + long cohabitation = strong presumption of legality. Failure of the contesting party with exclusive knowledge to step into the witness box will normally be fatal.

Practical consequences:

• Trial strategy: Parties now appreciate the high evidentiary value of elderly/community witnesses under Section 50 and will secure such testimonies early.
• Adverse inference jurisprudence: Non-appearance of key litigants will increasingly invite Section 114(g) presumption; courts may insist on commissioning evidence if genuine incapacity is pleaded.
• Revenue litigation: Reinforces that mutation entries are insufficient to defeat civil title claims.
• Gender & succession: Offers protection to first wives and their children in bigamous or subsequent-marriage contexts, reducing scope for ouster through “mere denial”.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 50 “Opinion on Relationship”

An exception to the hearsay rule. Allows a relative or someone with special knowledge to testify about family ties (e.g., who married whom) based on how the family behaved and what was commonly accepted.

Presumption of Marriage from Cohabitation

If two adults live together as husband and wife for a long time, the law assumes they are legally married unless strong evidence proves otherwise. This protects children from illegitimacy stigma.

Burden of Proof vs. Onus of Proof

Burden is the duty to prove a fact and never shifts. Onus is the practical necessity to produce evidence at a particular stage; it can shift back and forth as the case develops.

Adverse Inference (Section 114(g))

If a party could provide evidence but chooses not to, the court may presume that the evidence would have gone against that party.

Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC (Commission Evidence)

Allows the court to appoint a commissioner to record testimony of a witness who is too old, ill, or otherwise incapable of attending court.

Revenue Records vs. Title

Land revenue documents are maintained to collect tax; they are not conclusive proof of ownership or family status.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chowdamma v. Venkatappa re-emphasises core evidentiary doctrines while adapting them to contemporary realities of fragmented family structures and informal marriages. By giving full play to Section 50 Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption from long cohabitation, and penalising strategic silence by litigants, the Court:

• Safeguards the legitimacy of children and inheritance rights.
• Strengthens community-based proof of marriage where registries or certificates are absent.
• Signals that denial without probative rebuttal is insufficient in complex succession battles.

Going forward, litigants must adopt a proactive evidentiary approach—marshalling credible community witnesses, authenticating genealogical records, and, where necessary, stepping into the witness box. Courts, for their part, will likely continue to treat unexplained abstention from testimony as a powerful indicator of a weak defence. The judgment thus not only resolves a decades-old familial rift but also lays down a pragmatic and equitable precedent for future matrimonial and succession disputes across India.