(O&M) Bidamo v. Smt.Manbhari & Others

IN T

1. RSA-146

Smt. Bidamo (si

Manbhari and A

2. RSA-210

Smt. Bidamo (si

Manbhari and A

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

Bef mention here tha Vs. Smt. Manbh Manbhari and A Manbhari and A dated 19.01.199 Another". The t decree dated 10 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

Re

Pro 69-1998 (O&M) ince deceased) through her LRs VERSUS Another

01-1998 (O&M) ince deceased) through her LRs VERSUS Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with s. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the r. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocat ANNU, J fore proceeding to discuss the at there were two suits; one filed hari and Another" and second Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and Another Vs. Smt. Badamo and O 93 with the suit titled as "Smt trial Court disposed of both the

0.02.1995. Thereafter, defenda

JAB AND HARYANA GARH

served on: 19.08.2025 onounced on:27.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU appellant. te for the respondents. e factual matrix, it is relevant d by Badami, titled as "Smt. Bada filed by Manbhari titled as "S Others." The suit titled as "S Others" was consolidated vide or t. Badami Vs. Smt. Manbhari a e suits vide common judgment a ants-Manbhari and Ude Ram a

t to ami Smt. Smt. rder

Udey Bhan pref against the judg decided by the l

30.04.1998 as appeals. Thereaf Appeals.

2.

Thi Appeals filed

30.04.1998 pass whereby the ap judgment and d reversed, and th Brief Facts and

3.

recorded owner District Hisar. H and he was not s civilly dead, and Manbhari (defe Badami (plaintif

4.

Thi Badami claimin therefore, entitle Manbhari and U ferred two appeals, i.e CA No.3 gment and decree dated 10.02. ower Appellate Court vide one c common questions of facts an fter, plaintiff-Bidamo preferred t is order shall dispose of abov by Smt. Bidamo, impugning sed by the learned Lower Appe ppeal filed by the respondents/d decree dated 10.02.1995 passed he suit of the present appellant wa d Pleadings e facts are not much in dispute. r of agricultural land situated His whereabouts have not been k seen or heard of by any person. C d mutation No. 4426 dated 10.02 endant No.1), Ude Singh alias ff) in equal shares. is mutation gave rise to two civ ng herself to be the sole heir of ed to the entire estate to the excl Ude Ram filed a separate suit se

38 of 1995 and CA No.37 of 19 1995. Both the said appeals w common judgment and decree da nd law were involved in the s the above-said two Regular Seco ve-mentioned two Regular Seco the judgment and decree da ellate Court by common judgme defendants herein was allowed, d by the learned Trial Court w as dismissed. One Hari Ram S/o Jisukh was at village Kaliraman, Tehsil a known for more than three decad Consequently, he was deemed to

2.1991 was sanctioned in favour Ude Bhan (defendant No.2), a vil suits. One civil suit was filed Hari Ram being his daughter a lusion of others. On the other ha eeking declaration that the mutat

were ated said ond ond ated ent, were des, o be r of d by and, and,

in their favour a widow and Ude

5.

married Manbha asserted that aft second marriage

6.

1) 1A are 2) khe Kal 3) 4) OP 5) mo 6) han 7) ow 8)

7.

Ou pivotal. along with Badami was valid, on Ram, the son of Hari Ram. Both e stand of plaintiff/appellant-B ari, nor was Ude Ram his son. O fter the death of Hari Ram's fir e with Manbhari, and Ude Ram w e learned Trial Court framed the Whether the plaintiff is sole l A) If issue No.1 is not proved b legal heirs of deceased Hari Ram Whether the mutation No.44 ewat No.438 khatoni No.855 me liraman is wrong or illegal? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Whether the suit is not sign PD Whether the suit is frivolou otive and liable to be dismissed? Whether the plaintiff has n nds? Whether the plaintiff be stop wn act and conduct? OPD Relief. ut of the above-mentioned seven

n the ground that Manbhari was h suits were consolidated. Badami was that Hari Ram ne On the other hand, the responde rst wife, Mankori, he contracte was born out of that wedlock. following issues:- legal heir of her father? OPP by plaintiff then whether defenda m, if so its effect? OPD 426 dated 10.02.1991 pertaining easuing 72 kanals situated at vill P tainable in the present form? OP ned and verified according to la us and is being filed with ulter OPD not come to the court with cl pped to file the present suit by n issues, Issues No.1 and 1A w

ever ents d a ants g to age D aw? rior ean her

8.

Bot Trial Court Fin

9.

On respondents had widow and son. plaintiff/appella Lower Appellat

10.

Issues 1, 1A and the widow of H sole heir of Har lower Appellate Bidamo. Submissions of

11.

Lea respondents-def establish their re submits that tho Sh. Hari Ram Kaliraman, how produced on rec even from Ex. between Hari R reflected the bi evidence to est th the parties led their evidence i ndings n appreciation of evidence, the T d failed to prove their status as . Consequently, mutation No. 44 ant-Badami was declared sole ow te Court's findings e Lower Appellate Court reverse d 2, holding that it stood duly pr Hari Ram and Ude Ram is his son ri Ram, but the respondents also e Court accepted the appeal an f learned counsel for the appell arned Senior counsel for the a fendants failed to discharge th elationship with deceased Hari R ough the pleaded case of the resp lived together as husband an wever, neither any voter list n cord in order to establish the afo D5 i.e. the Birth Certificate Ram and Ude Bhan was never irth of son to Hari Ram at Vil tablish on record that Smt. Ma

in support of their contentions. Trial Court held that the defendan legal heirs of Hari Ram, being 426 was held to be illegal, and wner of the estate. ed the findings of the Trial Court roved on record that Manbhari w n. Resultantly, Bidamo was not o shared his estate. Accordingly, nd dismissed the suit of plaint lant appellant/plaintiff submits that the burden casted upon them Ram. Learned senior counsel furt ondent was that Smt. Manbhari a nd wife for around 20 years nor any ration card etc. was e oresaid fact. He further submits t dated 28.12.1954 the relations established as the said certific llage Kalait whereas there was anbhari and Hari Ram ever liv

nts-his t on tiff-to ther in ever that ship cate

together at Kala deposition of DW of respondent-de Ram as even as Baraat (a marri between the two

12.

Lea been contradict pleadings in the No. 95-C of 1 respondents-def Smt. Mamkauri whereas CS/160 in their plaint solemnized with contradictory sta needed to be dra Submissions of

13.

Lea submits that the on record, from to be of 70 year village Mayor.

14.

Lea on perusal of E ait. Learned senior counsel for th W5 Lal Chand cannot be relied u efendants with respect to the ma per the deposition made by DW iage party) and thus never saw o. arned Senior counsel for the app tion in the stand taken by th e suit as in the written statemen 1991 titled as 'Badamo versus fendants was that since the moth could not bear the child as such 0-C-RBT-1990 filed at the insta was that the marriage betwee h the consent of Mamkauri. He and taken by the respondents-de awn against them. f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for the responde e factum of marriage between H the deposition of DW1, DW2-J rs of age at the time of depositi arned counsel for the responden Ex.D5 it is very clearly establish

he appellant further submits that upon to record on finding in fav arriage of Smt. Manbhari with H W5 Lal Chand, he was never part w the marriage having taken pl pellant further submits that there he respondents-defendants in th nt filed on their behalf in Civil S s Manbhari'. The stand taken her of the appellant-plaintiff nam Hari Ram got married to Manbh ance of respondents the stand tak en Hari Ram and Manbhari w e thus submits that in the vague fendants, the adverse influence w ndents nts/defendants, on the other ha Hari Ram and Manbhari was prov Jana and DW3 Hukma who happ ion and are permanent residents nts/defendants further submits t hed that Hari Ram was having o

vour Hari rt of lace has heir Suit by mely hari ken e of and, ved pen s of that

son and in the defendant No. 2 vague of deposi it was establishe Ude Bhan to be

15.

It respondents/def DW5 very categ nephew and unc even a suggesti respondents-def Chand and Hari on the aspect of required to be be

16.

Lea judgments of th pleadings of the Court while hold respondents-def conjoint reading lifetime gave c Manbhari as the Findings

17.

Hav I find no infirmi facts and circumstances of th 2 has claimed himself to be the ition made by Manbhari having a ed on record that Manbhari happ his son. is further contended by fendants that in the very first gorically mentioned about his re cle and DW5 was never cross e ion was put to him in this reg fendants submits that once the i Ram was that of nephew and u f relationship between Hari Ram elieved. arned counsel for the responden he Appellate Court submits that e respondents was dealt with in d ding that in fact there was consis fendants and there was no contra g of both the pleadings it was cl consent to Hari Ram so as t ey were not having any male chil ving heard learned counsel for th ity in the judgment of the learned

he given case no one else exc e son of Hari Ram and thus in appeared as DW1 read with Ex.D pen to be the wife of Hari Ram a y learned counsel for line of cross-examination-in-ch lationship with Hari Ram as tha examined on the said aspect neit gard. Thus learned counsel for e relationship between DW5 uncle; the deposition of Lal Cha m and Manbhari & Ude Bhan w nt referring to para No. 19 of plea regarding contradiction of detail by the learned First Appell stency in the pleadings made by adiction in the pleadings as upo lear that Smt. Manbhari during to contract second marriage w ld. he parties and examined the reco d Lower Appellate Court.

cept D5, hief t of ther Lal late on a her with ord,

18.

evidence, erred the overall weig relationship is Appellate Cou contemporaneou of family mem established is su

19.

record. It was no was admitted by whether Manbh legitimate son.

20.

No.1A was righ box and depose Ude Ram was placed on the bi

28.12.1954. Ind that they had at ago, and that the

21.

Lea judgment of this others [1968 P observed that S e Trial Court, while discard in law by selectively extracting ght of evidence. The finding that thus based on misreading of urt has minutely examined us documents like the birth regis mbers and villagers. Its conclu upported by cogent reasoning. e learned Lower Appellate C oted that the relationship of Bida y the defendants. Thus, the que hari was the legally wedded wi e Lower Appellate Court has righ htly placed on the defendants. M d that she had married Hari Ram born two-and-a-half years late irth register, Ex.D5, recording th dependent witnesses, namely, Jan ttended the marriage of Manbh ey had always been regarded as h arned senior counsel for the s Court in the case of Ajaib Sing PLR 83] has submitted that thi Section 50 of the Indian Eviden

ding vital documentary and o portions of testimony and ignor the defendants failed to prove th evidence. In contrast, the Low the depositions of witness ster and voter lists, and the cond usion that the relationship sto Court scrutinised the evidence amo with Hari Ram as his daugh estion that fell for adjudication w fe of Hari Ram and Ude Ram htly observed that the onus of Is Manbhari herself entered the witn m soon after Independence and t er. In corroboration, reliance w hat a son was born to Hari Ram na DW2 and Huma DW3, depo hari with Hari Ram some 40 ye husband and wife. appellant while relying upon gh and others Vs. Mann Singh a is Court in the said judgment nce Act, 1872 (for short, 'the A

oral ring heir wer ses, duct ood on hter his ssue ness that m on osed ears has ct')

makes the opini whereas in the c that fulfils the r counsel for the a

22.

Rel as under:- "50 one exis fam rele

23.

In Ram's real brot that thereafter H village Kalirama he being a close Hari Ram and M

24.

Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 Hari Ram, and U discarded these residence at M Manbhari herse Thus, the voter case. on of a witness relevant only if t case in hand it is not so, no suc requirements of Section 50 of th appellant is not acceptable. levant part of the Section 50 of t

¶0When the Court has to form a e person to another the opinion stence of such relationship of an mily or otherwise, has special me evant fact" the present case, significantly, ther, categorically deposed that Hari Ram and Manbhari lived an, wherefrom Ude Ram was bo e relation with special means o Manbhari. e Lower Appellate Court furthe 4 of village Muklan, in which Ma Ude Ram as his son. It was obs e documents on the ground o Muklan, this reasoning was uns elf, her residence at village Ka r lists were rightly admissible

the same was expressed by cond h evidence has come on the rec he Act. This contention of learn the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 re an opinion as to the relationship n, expressed by conduct as to ny person who, as a member of eans of knowledge on the subject , Lal Chand (DW5), son of H he had attended the marriage a together as husband and wife orn. His testimony is of great val f knowledge on the relationship er placed reliance upon voter l anbhari was recorded as the wife served that although the Trial Co f absence of pleadings regard sustainable. In Civil Suit filed aliraman was specifically plead and corroborated the responden

duct cord ned eads p of f the t, is Hari e at lue, p of lists e of ourt ding by ded. nts'

25.

Manbhari in her her written state also clarified. T admission of c combined readi consented durin with Manbhari.

26.

examination she brought up by villagers. Her t Singh admitted

27.

Evidence Act, 1 persons with sp to another. In th Ram and Manbh was relevant and

28.

of sterling worth proved, are off register, Ex.D5, clinches the mat to any person ot e contradiction relied upon by th r suit (stating that she married ement (stating that she married The Lower Appellate Court he ontracting marriage during the ng of the pleadings showed th ng her lifetime, and after her dea The so-called contradiction was e statement of Bidamo herself w e admitted that she had not seen her maternal uncle, and had l testimony, therefore, was at be ignorance about the relationship e Lower Appellate Court also re 1872, which makes relevant the ecial means of knowledge regar he present case, relatives and v hari as husband and wife, and U d corroborative. e evidence of Lal Chand, a close h and corroborates the case of th ficial records carrying a presu , specifically recording the birt tter. There is nothing on record ther than the present parties.

he Trial Court between pleadings with consent of Mamkauri) and after the death of Mamkauri) w eld that there was no categori e lifetime of Mamkauri. Rather hat Mamkauri, being issueless, h ath, Hari Ram solemnised marri therefore illusory. was found unconvincing. In cro her father since childhood and w learnt about her father only fr est hearsay. Similarly, PW2 Gu between Hari Ram and Manbha eferred to Section 50 of the Ind opinion, expressed by conduct rding the relationship of one per villagers consistently regarded H Ude Ram as their son. This cond e relative with direct knowledge he defendants. The voter lists, d umption of correctness. The b th of a son to Hari Ram in 19 to suggest that these entries pert

s of d in ical r, a had age oss-rom ulab ari. dian , of rson Hari duct e, is duly irth 954,

29.

based on hears discharged their the plea of the a Conclusion

30.

In the learned Low Court. It has ca justified conclus son. Consequen also his legal he

31.

appreciation of e

32.

Acc dismissed.

33.

Pen

August 27, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

e testimony of Bidamo, on the say and devoid of personal r burden through oral, documen appellant could not be sustained. light of the above discussion, I wer Appellate Court has rightly arefully appreciated the entire sion that Manbhari was the wid ntly, Bidamo is not the sole heir eirs and entitled to succeed to his e findings of the Lower Appel evidence and in accordance with cordingly, the above said tw nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

e other hand, is insufficient, be knowledge. Once the defenda ntary, and circumstantial eviden am of the considered opinion t y reversed the findings of the T evidence and arrived at a lega dow of Hari Ram and Ude Ram r of Hari Ram; the respondents s estate. llate Court being based on pro h law, call for no interference. wo Regular Second Appeals stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

eing ants nce, that Trial ally his are oper