![]() Its findings were perverse and are set aside. It erred in re-appreciating the evidence in second appeal as no substantial question of law was involved. ![]() Held, High Court erred in concluding that mere live-in-relationship would lead to presumption of marriage. ![]() Section 100 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112 – Substantial question of law – Reappreciation of evidence – ‘M’ died unmarried and intestate – ‘R’, defendant No.1’s claim on his property on the ground that she was in live-in-relationship with ‘M’ and had two children from him, rejected – Appeal, dismissed – Categorical finding of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court that ‘R’ had been married to ‘A’ who was alive on the date of institution of suit and marriage between ‘R’ and ‘M’ could not be presumed reversed, by High Court in second appeal – Justification – Non-access between ‘R’ and ‘A’ not pleaded – No legal separation between them shown – High Court ignored evidence of PW2 and PW5 – Only DW1’s statement considered, who was disbelieved by courts below on cogent reasons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |