Dhannulal & Others v. Ganeshram & Another
Background
The dispute concerned ownership of two houses that originally belonged to one Shivram. His daughter's grandson (the plaintiff, Ganeshram) claimed the property by adverse possession through his grandmother's line, and challenged a 1977 Will and a 1987 sale deed executed by Phoolbasa Bai (who claimed to be the legally wedded second wife of Shivram's son, Chhatrapati) in favour of other relatives and a purchaser. The trial court upheld the Will and the sale deed; on appeal, the High Court upheld the sale deed but struck down the Will as not proved, triggering cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by both sides.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since Phoolbasa Bai and Chhatrapati had cohabited openly as husband and wife for about 20 years and were recognised as such by the family and community, the law presumes a valid marriage (and legitimacy of their son) unless clearly rebutted, relying on A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Balahamy and Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari. The plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption, so the High Court was right that Phoolbasa Bai was the lawful wife. On the Will, the Court agreed with the High Court that it suffered from serious suspicious circumstances (irregular signature placement, altered date, no mention of the Will in Phoolbasa Bai's own later written statement) and was rightly held not proved. Both cross-appeals were dismissed, confirming the High Court's judgment in full.
Lesson Learnt
Indian courts presume a valid marriage (not mere concubinage) from long, open cohabitation as husband and wife unless strong contrary evidence is shown, but a Will, which requires a higher standard of proof than ordinary documents, can still be struck down if its execution is surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances.