Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another vs Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another

Held: Testimony of P.W.2 being that of a person residing in the same village and having a long-standing familiarity with both the respondents and the appellants, coupled with his awareness of the events pertaining to the relationship between the deceased and the respondents’ mother, cannot be dismissed as mere hearsay – On the contrary, it reflects a narration of events personally witnessed or known to him directly – Such evidence, being rooted in personal knowledge, falls within the ambit of s.50 – Thus, in the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence, the evidence of P.W.2 assumes evidentiary significance in establishing the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the respondents’ mother – His evidence is consistent with s.50 and is being rooted in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance with both the respondents and appellants – P.W.2’s testimony was unimpeached in the cross-examination and warrants an inference in favour of the subsistence of a valid marital relationship between the deceased and the respondent’s mother – Though genealogical tree, by itself, does not constitute conclusive proof, it operates as corroborative evidence and, when read along with the oral testimony of P.W.2, it supports the inference of a valid marital relation between the deceased and the respondents’ mother – As regards the presumption of marriage, plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proof placed upon them – They have sufficiently established that the deceased lived with their mother, as husband and wife – Appellants failed to discharge their onus to disprove the factum of a valid marriage between the respondents’ mother and the deceased – Furthermore, reliance on the revenue records is of no avail, as such records only hold presumptive value and don’t confer title – Appellant no.1, though physically present in the court during the trial, abstained from stepping into the witness box to rebut the respondents’ assertions as also wilfully bypassed the statutory remedy available to those pleading physical incapacity – In the absence of cogent medical evidence to support her alleged incapacity, her abstention from the witness box constitutes deliberate circumvention of the evidentiary burden resting upon her – Adverse presumption u/s.114(g) of the Evidence Act is inevitable – Court of law cannot offer refuge to studied silence where a duty to disclose exists – Respondents anchored their claim in measured and unwavering testimony of P.W.2, an account rooted in personal knowledge and long-standing familiarity, which withstood the rigours of cross-examination – His evidence, unshaken and consistent, found further corroboration in the genealogical chart presented by the respondents – It, thus, stands established that the respondents have discharged the evidentiary burden imposed upon them by law – In contrast, the appellants, bereft of probative material or candour, resorted solely to denials – When measured against the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the scales unambiguously tilt in favour of the respondents – Impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Paras 25, 30-32, 42, 48, 49, 55-57, 59, 60]