CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER versus VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER
The testimony of P.W.2, grounded in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance and consistent with Section 50 Evidence Act, together with the corroborative genealogical chart, established that the deceased lived with the respondents' mother as husband and wife; the respondents discharged their burden and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another; Respondent: Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 25 August 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Proof of Relationship, Presumption of Marriage, Section 50 Evidence Act, Proof of Pedigree, Burden of Proof and Onus, Adverse Inference Under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, Revenue Records and Title, Consequences of Failure to Testify
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another
Appellant
Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondents established a valid marital relationship between their mother and the deceased primarily on the basis of oral testimony of P.W.2
- 2 Whether the relationship between the deceased and the respondents' mother can be presumed to be a valid marital union in the absence of formal documentary proof
- 3 Whether adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act is warranted for defendant No.1's failure to testify
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of P.W.2, grounded in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance and consistent with Section 50 Evidence Act, together with the corroborative genealogical chart, established that the deceased lived with the respondents' mother as husband and wife; the respondents discharged their burden and the defendants failed to rebut that case; defendant No.1's deliberate failure to testify (without invoking available CPC remedy for infirmity) warranted an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) Evidence Act; revenue entries are presumptive and do not confer title; accordingly the High Court rightly set aside the Trial Court and decreed the partition in favour of the...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment