RAJENDER SINGH Vs. RAVINDER YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 14.5.2004. By the impugned judgment the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for partition, permanent injunction etc. was decreed with respect to the suit property being H.No. 80(part) Samaipur Main Market, Delhi.

(2.) THE only issue which is urged before this Court is as to whether respondent /plaintiff was or was not the legitimate child of Sh. Rajender Singh and Smt. Murti Devi. Putting it differently, the issue is whether the date of birth of the respondent /plaintiff is 1.3.1975 and whether Smt. Murti Devi married Sh. Rajender Singh earlier on 20.4.1974 as per the case of the respondent/plaintiff or later on 15.12.1975(i.e. after 1.3.1975) as per the case of the appellants/defendants.

(3.) A reference to the aforesaid paragraphs shows that whereas no documentary evidence was led by the appellants/defendants to show the date of marriage of Smt. Murti Devi with Sh. Rajender Singh as 15.12.1975, Smt. Murti Devi as PW-2 produced certificate of marriage, Ex.PW2/A as also PW- 5, Sh. Balbir Singh Yadav, Pradhan of the village, who has confirmed the fact that he had issued the certificate of marriage as the Pradhan of the village. Further, the ration card of Sh.Rajender Singh with Smt. Murti Devi as Ex.DW1/4 proved that the respondent/plaintiff was the son of Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav and in this ration card Rajender Singh/defendant No.1 is the head of the family. The trial Court has rightly observed that since the date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff was 1.3.1975, the birth certificate in fact would not be at the instance of Smt. Murti Devi as normally, ladies are not allowed to go out of the house for at least 40 days of the birth of her child. The trial Court also observed that no suggestion was given to Smt. Murti Devi that the birth of the respondent/plaintiff was got registered by her and that she had wrongly given the name of the father of the plaintiff as Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav. In fact, the trial Court also correctly notes that there was no reason to give the wrong name of the father of the plaintiff in 1975 because at that stage, there were no disputes between the parties. The trial Court has also rightly observed that if Murti Devi had an illegitimate child before marriage (the first husband expired way back in 1969) the defendant No.1 would not have married her. To the above reasoning of the trial Court, I may add that a Court is entitled under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct. In this case, the relation of Smt. Murti Devi and Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav who were living together as husband and wife, after the death of Suraj Singh, is not disputed. Once Smt. Murti Devi and Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav were living together as husband and wife, I would seek to draw presumption that they were living together as husband and wife i.e. only after their having been married and it is an aspect, in fact, is confirmed by the certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by Sh. Balbir Singh, Pradhan of the village. Therefore the Courts will loath to take a view which will make a child illegitimate.