Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004

Madan Mohan Singh & Ors.          ..Appellants  

Versus

Rajni Kant & Anr.                   ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order  

dated 14.8.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19334 of 2003 passed  

by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the High Court  

dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in view of the concurrent  

findings recorded by the three statutory authorities under the Statute.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one  

Chandra Deo Singh was recorded as the khatedar of Khata Nos.485,  

620,  146  and  66  of  Village  Bhojapur  and  Khata  No.21  of  Village

Kanshari.  The respondents in appeal, Rajni Kant and Anjani Kumar  

claimed themselves to be the sons of said Chandra Deo Singh and  

filed  objections  under  Section  9-A(2)  of  U.P.  Consolidation  of  

Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Consolidation Act’) and  

they  asked  for  inclusion  of  their  names  as  his  heirs.   Another  

objection was filed by the appellants in the disputed khata submitting  

that the said respondents had no right or interest in the suit land, not  

being the sons of late Chandra Deo Singh and the appellants were  

his only legal heirs.  The Consolidation Officer having framed large  

number of issues and having provided full opportunity of hearing to  

both the parties to lead evidence and make submissions, passed an  

order  dated  8.11.2000,  allowing  the  objections  filed  by  the  

respondents  and  further  directing  to  record  their  names.   Being  

aggrieved, the appellants preferred the appeal before the Settlement  

Officer  which  had been dismissed vide judgment  and order  dated  

16.2.2001.   Being  aggrieved,  the  appellants  preferred  Revision  

No.958 under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act which  also stood  

dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2003.

2

3. The appellants further agitated the issue, challenging the said  

judgments and orders by filing Writ Petition No.19334/2003 which has  

also  been  dismissed  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  14.8.2003.  

Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri  Mahabir  Singh,  Ld.  Senior  counsel,  appearing  for  the  

appellants,  has  submitted  that  mother  of  the  appellants,  Smt.  

Sonbarsa died in 1945.  Chandra Deo Singh, father of the appellants  

remained  in  Jail  as  a  Freedom  Fighter  from  1945-47.   There  is  

nothing on record to show that appellants’ father got married with the  

mother of the respondents Smt. Shakuntala in accordance with law.  

At the most she could be concubine of Chandra Deo Singh and being  

illegitimate  children,  the  respondents  have  no  right  to  inherit  any  

share in the suit land.  More so, the respondents were born prior to  

having started live-in-relationship between Chandra Deo Singh and  

said  Smt.  Shakuntala  as  is  evident  from the  School  Register  and  

School  leaving  certificate  produced  by  the  appellants  before  the  

statutory authorities as well as before the High Court and this Court.  

The said documents had not been properly appreciated by any of the  

authorities. The findings of facts recorded by the statutory authorities  

3

are perverse being contrary to evidence  on record produced by the  

appellants.  The High Court did not make any attempt to appreciate  

the  evidence  at  all.   Findings  so  recorded,  are  perverse,  being  

contrary to the evidence on record.  The appeal has merit and  thus,  

deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri Abhay Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the  

respondents has submitted that three statutory authorities under the  

Consolidation Act have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that  

Chandra Deo Singh and Smt. Shakuntala were living together for a  

long time.  Their relationship as husband and wife had been accepted  

by  the  Society  as  well  as  the  family  members.   In  many  official  

documents,  name of  Chandra Deo Singh has been shown as the  

father of the respondents.  In the beginning, Chandra Deo Singh did  

not disclose the relationship with Smt. Shakuntala because of social  

conditions  that  the Society  may not  accept  their  relationship  even  

after the death of his wife Smt. Sonbarsa.  Both the respondents were  

born out of their relationship.  Appeal lacks merits and is liable to be  

dismissed.   

4

6. We have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made by learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.   

In fact, statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act enjoys  

the powers of the Civil  Court as well  as the Revenue Court as all  

matters  pending  before  the  Civil  Court  stand  abated  once  a  

notification of initiation of proceedings under the Consolidation Act is  

issued.  Authorities under the Consolidation Act have been conferred  

powers of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon any matter of title or right  

to  inherit the property etc.   

      Undoubtedly, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by  

three authorities under the Consolidation Act after appreciating the  

entire evidence on record.  The authorities have recorded following  

findings of facts:-

(I) Chandra  Deo  Singh  was  having  relationship  with  Smt.  

Shakuntala for long time;

(II) After the death of his wife Sonbarsa in 1945, Chandra Deo  

Singh  had  live-in-relationship  with  Smt.  Shakuntala  and  

started living as husband and wife;

(III) Chandra Deo Singh started living with Smt. Shakuntala in a  

different village namely, Murdah in 1960-1961.  

5

(IV) Their  relationship  continued till  the death of  Chandra Deo  

Singh on 31.12.1979 and therefore,  they lived together as  

husband and wife for a long period;  

(V) The respondents and other four daughters were born out of  

this  relationship  between  Chandra  Deo  Singh  and  Smt.  

Shakuntala; and

(VI) Their relationship as husband and wife had been accepted  

not only by the Society but also by the family members.

7. The  aforesaid  concurrent  findings  of  facts  recorded  by  the  

authorities under the Consolidation Act  have been affirmed by the  

High  Court  though  without  having  full-fledged  appreciation  of  

evidence.  The High Court  reached the conclusion that findings of  

facts recorded by three courts below did not require re-appreciation of  

evidence and further that no interference was required with same  in  

exercise of writ jurisdiction.

8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the  

appellants persuaded us to have recourse to the unusual procedure  

submitting that in spite of concurrent findings of facts by courts below,  

6

this  Court  must  appreciate  the  evidence  itself  for  the  reason  that  

findings of facts so recorded are perverse.  He has placed a very  

heavy reliance on the documents the appellants have submitted and  

contended that the said documents are admissible under Section 35  

of  the Indian Evidence Act,  1872 (hereinafter  called the ‘Evidence  

Act’)  and mere reading of  those documents  would not  leave any  

doubt that the findings recorded by the courts- below are contrary to  

the evidence on record.  In order to substantiate his submission, he  

has placed reliance on large number of judgments of this Court.    

However,  before  entering  into  any  law,  we  would  like  to  

examine the documents which are so heavily relied by learned Senior  

counsel.  The documents so placed on record are basically School  

Leaving  Certificates,  School  Registers,  Voter  Lists  and  other  

documents prepared by the authorised persons in exercise of their  

official duty.  Annexure P-1(Colly) is the copy of Electoral Rolls for  

Legislative  Assembly  of  the  three  consecutive  elections.   The  

particulars of Smt. Shakuntala had been shown therein as under:-

7

Electoral  Rolls  for  year of  

S.No. House  

No.

Name  &  Father/  Husband/Mother’s Name

Male/Female Age

1975 128  20 Smt.  Shakuntala- Saraswati

Female 34

1979 138 20 Smt.  Shakuntala- Saraswati

Female 36

1980 157 20 Smt.  Shakuntala- Saraswati

Female 41

9. These entries are very relevant to determine the controversy  

regarding  the  date  of  birth  of  the  respondents  and  other  family  

members.   As  per  the  first  document  in  Annex.P-1  (Colly),   Smt.  

Shakuntala should have been born in 1941 as she was 34 years of  

age in 1975. As per the 2nd list she should have been born in 1943 as  

she was 36 years of age in 1979.  Immediately, after one year in  

1980 she became 41 years of age and according to this document  

she should have been born in 1939.   

There is so much inconsistency that these documents cannot  

be read together for the reason that in 1979 if Smt. Shakuntala was  

36 years of age, in 1980 she had been shown 41 years of age.  So,  

after expiry of one year, her age had gone up by 5 years.     

10. Annexure P-3 has been filed as the copy of the report prepared  

by the Tahsildar in view of the order passed by the competent court  

8

dated  31.7.1984.   According  to  that  Asha  Devi,  daughter  of  Smt.  

Shakuntala  and  sister  of  respondents  was  born  on  7.7.1951.  

Therefore, if Smt. Shakuntala as per the first document was born in  

1941, question of giving birth to Asha could not arise at the age of 10  

years.  If we go by the second document of 1979, Smt. Shakuntala  

was born in 1943 and she could not have given birth to Asha in 1951  

at  the  age  of  8  years.   According  to  the  third  document,  Smt.  

Shakuntala was 41 years of age in 1980.  So, at the time of birth of  

Asha, Smt. Shakuntala was 12 years of age. Same is the position in  

respect  of  Savitri,  another  daughter  of  Smt.  Shakuntala.   As  per  

Annexure P-4, School Leaving Certificate, her date of  birth has been  

recorded as 1.9.1949.  If this document is taken to be true and age of  

Smt.  Shankutala  is  taken from Annex.P-1  (Colly),  we will  have to  

record a finding of fact that Smt. Shakuntala gave birth to Savitri at  

the age of 6 years.  

11. Now  we  come  to  the  most  material  evidence  (Annex.  P-8)  

submitted  by  the  appellants  in  respect  of  age  of  Rajni  Kant,  

respondent No.1.  The said document is a Certificate for practicing  

Unani  medicine  and  therein  his  date  of  birth  has  been  shown as  

9

15.7.1940.  If this document is taken to be true and compared with  

the  document  contained  in  Annexure  P-1  (Colly)  wherein  Smt.  

Shakuntala had been shown 34 years of age in 1975 and 36 years of  

age in 1979, it becomes arithmetically clear that Smt. Shakuntala had  

given birth to him even prior to her own birth.  

12. The aforesaid documents placed on record by the appellants  

and so heavily relied upon by them, if taken into consideration, they  

would simply lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but  

absurdity also.  It is most unfortunate that none of the courts below  

had analysed these documents in this manner while taking them into  

consideration and none of the lawyers have thought it proper to bring  

these most glaring facts to the notice of and of the courts.  

13. In State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR  

1983 SC 684, this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as  

under:–

“Admissibility of a document is one thing and  its probative value quite another - these two  aspects  cannot  be  combined.  A  document  may be admissible and yet may not carry any  

10

conviction  and  weight  of  its  probative  value  may be nil.. . . . . Where  a  report  is  given  by  a  responsible  officer,  which  is  based  on  evidence  of  witnesses  and  documents  and  has  “a  statutory flavour in that it is given not merely  by  an  administrative  officer  but  under  the  authority  of  a  Statute,  its  probative  value  would indeed be very high so as to be entitled  to great weight. The  probative  value  of  documents  which,   however ancient they may be, do not disclose  sources  of  their  information  or  have  not   achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little.”

14. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether  

the  entry  contained  therein  has  any  probative  value  may  still  be  

required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular  

case.  The  aforesaid  legal  proposition  stands  fortified  by  the  

judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar  

AIR 1970 SC 326; Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC  

1029; Dayaram & Ors. Vs. Dawalatshah & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 681;  

Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC  

361; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi  Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584;  

Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.   (2008) 13 SCC 133;  

Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj AIR 2008 SC 632; and Ram Suresh Singh  

Vs. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu Singh & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 681.   In  

11

these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an  

official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official  

duty,  it  may have weight but still  may require corroboration by the  

person on whose information the entry has been made and as to  

whether  the  entry  so  made  has  been  exhibited  and  proved.  The  

standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil  and  

criminal cases.  

15. Such  entries  may  be  in  any  public  document,  i.e.  school  

register,  voter  list  or  family  register  prepared under the Rules and  

Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of  

the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of  

U.P. & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1625; and  Santenu Mitra Vs. State of  

West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587.     

16. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or  

person authorised in  performance of  official  duties  are  concerned,  

they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the  

court has a right to examine their probative value.  The authenticity of  

the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood  

12

recorded  and  what  was  his  source  of  information.   The  entry  in  

School  Register/School  Leaving Certificate require to be proved in  

accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases  

remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.   

17. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of  

his/her parents, if it is supported by un-impeachable documents. In  

case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands  

belied  by  the  un-impeachcable  evidence  of  reliable  persons  

andontemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the  

Municipal Corporation, Government Hospital/Nursing Home etc, the  

entry in  the school  register  is  to  be discarded.  (Vide:  Brij  Mohan  

Singh  Vs.  Priya  Brat  Narain  Sinha  &  Ors. AIR  1965  SC  282;  

Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796;  Vishnu  

Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283; and Satpal Singh Vs.  

State of Haryana JT 2010 (7) SC 500).   

18. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants  

to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in  

terms of  Section 32(5) or  Sections 50,  51,  59,  60 & 61 etc.of  the  

13

Evidence  Act  by  examining  the  person  having  special  means  of  

knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. (Vide:  

Updesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Prithvi Singh & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 524;  

and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868).

19. In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr.  (2010) 5 SCC 600,  

this Court, placing reliance upon its earlier decision in Lata Singh Vs.  

State of U.P. & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522, held that live-in-relationship  

is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex.  

20. In  S.P.S.  Balasubramanyam  Vs. Suruttayan  @  Andali  

Padayachi & Ors.  AIR 1992 SC 756, this Court held that if man and  

woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of  

years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence  

Act, that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them  

will not be illegitimate.    

21. The  courts  have  consistently  held  that  the  law  presumes  in  

favour  of  marriage  and  against  concubinage,  when  a  man  and  

woman  have  cohabited  continuously  for  a  number  of  years.  

However,  such  presumption  can  be  rebutted  by  leading  

unimpeachable  evidence.  (Vide:  Mohabbat  Ali  Khan Vs.  Mohd.  

Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135;  Gokalchand Vs.. Parvin Kumar,  

14

AIR  1952  SC  231;  S.P.S.  Balasubramanyam Vs.  Suruttayan,  

(1994) 1  SCC 460;  Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali Vs.  

Eknath  Gajanan  Kulkarni,  (1996)  7  SCC  681;  and  Sobha  

Hymavathi  Devi Vs.  Setti  Gangadhara Swamy & Ors.,  (2005) 2  

SCC 244).  

22. In  view  of  the  above,  the  kind  of  material  placed  by  the  

appellants on record cannot be termed enough to disbelieve the claim  

of  the  respondents.   The findings  of  facts  recorded by  the  courts  

below cannot be disturbed on this material.  The appellants’ case has  

been that the respondents were born prior to 1960 i.e. prior to the  

year Chandra Deo Singh started living with Smt. Shakuntala.  As per  

the Annexure P1 (Colly), Smt. Shakuntala was born near about 1941.  

If the documents filed by the appellants are taken to be true, we will  

have to record a finding of fact that Smt. Shakuntala gave birth to her  

two daughters,  namely,  Asha and Savitri,  when she was only  5-6  

years  of age and in case, the Certificate of Rajni  Kant-respondent  

no.1, contained in Annexure P8 is taken to be true and is considered  

in  the light  of  the documents  contained in  Annexure P1 (Colly),  it  

could be arithmetically clear that Smt. Shakuntala had given birth to  

Rajni Kant, respondent No. 1 on 15.7.1940, i.e., even prior to her own  

15

birth in 1941.  If  all  the said documents are accepted, they would  

simply  lead  not  only  to  improbabilities  and  impossibilities  but  

absurdity also.  It is most unfortunate that none of the courts below  

had  analysed  documents  in  correct  perspective.   The  live-in-

relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as  

“walk  in  and  walk  out”  relationship  and  there  is  a  presumption  of  

marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut.

23. In view of the above, the appeal does not present special facts  

and circumstances which may warrant further re-appreciation of the  

evidence as the appeal  is  based on totally unreliable/contradicting  

documents  and  not  worth  placing  any  reliance.   It  is  accordingly  

dismissed.  No cost.

…………………………….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………..… …..J. New Delhi, (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) August 13, 2010

16

17