Case: Challamma Vs. Tilaga

K.T. Subramanya (the deceased) was employed with Karnataka Power Corporation (for short, "KPC") at Linganamakki. He took four life insurance policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India being dated 13.1.1987, 16.2.1987, 31.3.1987, and 3.6.1988. Indisputably, therein he nominated Challamma, his mother as the beneficiary thereof. The first respondent is said to have entered into a wedlock with the deceased on 3.12.1984. Subramanya died on 22.9.1988.Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are said to be the sons of the deceased Subramanya and the first respondent herein. The respondents filed an application for grant of succession certificate in their favour in terms of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, "the Act") in the Court of Civil Judge, Sagar in respect of the scheduled debts. The said application was marked as P & S.C. 3/89. Appellant admittedly being the mother of the deceased filed an application for being impleaded as a party therein, which was allowed. She objected to the grant of the said succession certificate contending that the deceased was not married at all. The core question in view of the aforementioned stand taken by the appellant in the said proceedings was as to whether the first respondent was married to the deceased or not.A large number of witnesses being P.Ws. 1 to 5, namely, Tilaga, first respondent herein (P.W.1), Muniyamma, the mother of respondent no.1 (P.W.2), Puttappa, father of the respondent No.1 (P.W.3), Y.M. Bangera, Administrative Officer, L.I.C. of India, Sagar (P.W.4) and Subba Rao B.R., the Personnel Officer of the K.P.C. (P.W.5) were examined by the respondents in support of their contention that the first respondent was married to the deceased.. A large number of documents including photographs showing performance of marriage ceremony were also filed. Inter alia on a finding that the first respondent and the deceased having been residing in a quarter together for a period of 3 years, 9 months and 19 days and furthermore having arrived at a finding of fact that the society accepted them as husband and wife, the learned trial judge held that a presumption of valid marriage should be drawn and on the basis thereof the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the respondents herein was allowed.Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, preferred an appeal thereagainst in the court of District Judge, Shimoga which was marked as Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1995. The said appeal was eventually transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge. By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.3.2004, the learned First Appellate Court opined that the appellant was entitled to 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased while upholding the judgment and order of the learned trial judge that the marriage by and between the deceased and the first respondent was valid and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were their sons.Still not satisfied, the appellant preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1115 of 2004 before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been

Court's reasoning:
In arriving at a finding of fact indisputably the learned trial judge was not only entitled to analyze the evidences brought on record by the parties hereto so as to come to a conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of a valid marriage as contained in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stand established or not; a presumption of a valid marriage having regard to the fact that they had been residing together for a long time and has been accepted in the society as husband and wife, could also beis true, as has been contended by Mr. Chaturvedi, that the appellant had brought on record certain documents to show that the deceased in the year 1986 while applying for his employment in Mysore Power Corporation showed his status as `single, but a specific finding of fact had been arrived at by the courts below that all the subsequent documents clearly showed that not only the deceased married the first respondent but also he sought for allotment of a quarter as a married person. It is of some significance to notice that one Subba Rao, a personnel officer of the KPC while examining himself as P.W.5 categorically stated that in terms of the rules for allotment of quarter by the company commonly known as `Township Committee Rules quarters were allotted to married persons only and clubbed accommodation were provided to the bachelors.10. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that in determining the question of valid marriage, the conduct of the deceased in a case of this nature would be of some relevance. If on the aforementioned premise, the learned trial judge has arrived at a finding that the deceased Subramanya had married the first respondent, no exception thereto can be taken. A long cohabitation and acceptance of the society of a man and woman as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage.In view of the fact that the appellant was one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Subramanya, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that she had been rightly held to be entitled to 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased Subramanya.