[2010] 10 S.C.R. 30

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

RAJNI KANT AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004)

AUGUST 13, 2010

[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - s.9A(2) - Objections filed by respondents for inclusion of their names C in the disputed khata as the deceased Khatedar's heirs - Appellants filed cross-objections contending that the mother of the respondents, at the most, could be concubine of the deceased Khatedar; and being illegitimate children, the respondents had no right to inherit any share in the disputed D khata - Statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act concurrently held in favour of the respondents and directed recording of their names - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: The live-in-relationship between the deceased Khatedar and the mother of the respondents continued for a E long time, and thus there was a presumption of marriage .-., between them which the appellants failed to rebut - Material

placed on record by the appellants not enough to disbelieve the claim of the respondents and the findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be disturbed on that ground- The F '.'ifocuments placed by the appellants, if accepted, would simply lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but absurdity also - No special facts and circumstances warranting further re-appreciation of the evidence by the Supreme Court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.

Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.32(5) and 35 - Entry in official record - Probative value of - Standard of proof required in such cases.

Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 114 - Legitimacy of children bom

30 (

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 31

AND ANR.

to live-in partners - Held: The Jaw presumes in favour of A 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. - . -8 'C', the ; father of the appellants, was the Khatedar of the Khata in question. After the death of his wife in 1945, 'C' had live-in-relationship with one 'SH' which continued till his death in 1979. The respondents, who were

purportedly born out of this relationship between 'C and C 'SH', filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming that their names be included as the heirs of 'C'. The appellants filed _ cross-objections contending that the respondents ha"d. no right or interest in the disputed Khata.

The Consolidation Officer i.e. the statutory authority under the Consolidation Act, allowed the objections filed

by the respondents and directed that their names be recorded. The order was upheld in appeal before the Settlement Officer as also in revision. The appellants E thereafter filed writ petition which was dismissed by the High_ Court.

Aggrieved, the appellants contended before this Court that there was nothing on 1record to show that their father had married 'SH' in accordance with law; that 'SH', F at the most, could be concubine of 'C'; and that being illegitimate children, the respondents had no right to inherit any share in the disputed khata. The appellants contended that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below were perverse and contrary to G documents on record placed by them, and therefore the Supreme Court ought to appreciate the evidence itself.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court H

HELD:1. The statutory authorities under the U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 enjoy 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. The 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. In the instant case, three authorities under the Consolidation Act recorded concurrent findings of facts after appreciating the entire evidence on record, which were affirmed by the High Court. [Paras 6, 7) [39-A-D; 40-B-C)

2.1. In the instant case, the documents placed on record by the appellants are School Leaving Certificates, School Registers, Voter Lists and other documents prepared by the authorised persons in exercise of their official duty. There is so much inconsistency that these documents cannot be read together. The said documents, if taken into consideration, 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 the courts. [Paras 8, 9 and

12) [40-G-H; 41-E-F; 42-E-F] .

2.2. A document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative

. G value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 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

H whose information the entry has been made and as to

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 33

AND ANR.

whether the entry so made has been exhibited and A proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil .and criminal cases. The entries made in the official record, by an official or person authorised in

B performance of official duties, may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded nd what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordan.ce with law c and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases.

For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by un-impeccable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the D school register/certificate stands belied by the unintpeccable evidence of reliable. persons and contemporaneous 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. If a person wants to rely on a E particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. [Paras 14, 16, 17, 18]

[43-D-G; 44-B-C; 44-D-G]

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684; Ram Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326; Ram Murti v. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC G 1029; Dayaram & Ors. v. Dawa/atshah & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 681; Harpa/ Singh & Anr. v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584; Bab/oo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 133; Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj AIR 2008 SC 632; Ram H

A Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu Singh & Anr. (2009)

6 SCC 681 ; Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha &

Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283; Satpa/ Singh v. State of Haryana JT 2010 (7) SC B 500; Upc/esh Kumar & Ors. v. Prithvi Singh & Ors. (2001) 2

SCC 524 and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh AIR 2005 SC 1'868, relied on.

Mohd. lkram Hussain v. The State of U.P. & Ors. AIR C 1964 SC 1625; Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal AIR

1999 SC 1587, referred to.

3.1. 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 D a number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. [Para 21)

[45-C-D]

3.2. In the instant case, the material placed on record E by the appellants cannot be termed enough to disbelieve

the claim of the respondents and the findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be disturbed on that ground. The appellants' case was that the respondents were born prior to 1960 i.e. prior to the year 'C' started F living with 'SH'. As per the Electoral Rolls, 'SH' was born near about 1941. If the documents filed by the appellants are taken to be true, one will have to record a finding of fact that 'SH' gave birth to her two daughters when she was only 5-6 years of age and in case, the Certificate of respondent no.1 (Certificate for practicing Unani medicine G wherein his date of birth is shown) is taken to be true and is considered in the light of the documents contained in Electoral rolls, it was arithmetically clear that 'SH' had given birth to respondent no.1 even prior to her own birth.

If all the documents placed on record by the appellants H are accepted, they would simply lead not only to

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 35

AND ANR.

improbabilities and impossibilities but absurdity also. A None of the courts below had analysed documents in correct perspective. In the instant case, the live-inrelationship, if continued for such a long time, could not be termed as "walk in and walk out" relationship and there was a presumption of marriage between them which 8 the appellants failed to rebut. There are no special facts and circumstances which warranted further reappreciation of the evidence as the appeal was based on totally unreliable/contradicting documents. [Paras 22, 23)

[45-F-H; 46-A-C] c S.P. S. Balasubramanyam v. Suiuttayan @ Andali Padayachi & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 756; Mohabbat Ali Khan v.

Mohd. Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 PC 135; Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumar AIR 1952 SC 231; S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v.

Suruttayan (1994) 1 SCC 460; Ranganath Parmeshwar D Panditrao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni (1996) 7 SCC 681 and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors. (2005) 2 sec 244, relied on.

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5. SCC 600 E and Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522, referred to.

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1983 SC 684 relied on Para 13 F

AIR 1970 SC 326 relied on Para 14

AIR 1970 SC 1029 relied on Para 14

AIR 1971 SC 681 relied on Para 14 G

AIR 1981 SC 361 relied on Para 14

(2006) 5 sec 584 relied on Para 14

(2008) 13 sec 133 relied on Para 14 H

AIR 2008 SC 632 relied on Para 14

(2009) 6 sec 681 relied on Para 14

AIR 1964 SC 1625 referred to Para 15

AIR 1999 SC 1587 referred to Para 15

AIR 1965 SC 282 relied on Para 17

AIR 1988 SC 1796 relied on Para 17

(2006) 1 sec 283 relied on Para 17 c

JT 2010 (7) SC 500 relied on Para 17

c2001 > 2 sec 524 relied on Para 18

AIR 2005 SC 1868 relied on Para 18

D c201 O) 5 sec 600 referred to Para 19

AIR 2006 SC 2522 referred to Para 19

AIR 1992 SC 756 relied on Para 20

AIR 1929 PC 135 relied on Para 21

AIR 1952 SC 231 relied on Para 21

(1994) 1 sec 460 relied on Para 21

(1996) 1 sec 681 relied on Para 21 F

(2005) 2 sec 244 relied on Para 21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004.

G From the Judgment & Order dated 14.8.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19334 of 2003.

Mahabir Singh, V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh for the Appellants.

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT

AND ANR.

Abhay Kumar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. .B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 in Civil Misc. 8 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 C 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- D A(2} of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Ac( .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 E 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 F 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 G Section, 48 of the Consolidation ACt which also stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2003.

3. The appellants further agitated the issue, challenging the said judgments and orders by filing Writ Petition No.19334/ H

A 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 70r the appellants, has submitted that mother of the appellants, Smt.

8 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 C respondents have no right to inherit any share in the suit land.

More so, the respondents were born prior to haying started livein-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 D 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 are perverse being contrary toevidence on record produced by the appellants. The High Court did not E make any attempf 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 rec0rded 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 G as the family members. In many official docur:nents, 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

H relationship even after the death of his wife Smt. Sonbarsa.

MADAN- MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 39

AND ANR. [DR. B_S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Both the respondents were born .out of.their 1felationship. Appeal A lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed:" ·

. 6. We have considered the-rival submissions made by learned counsel for.the parties and P7rused the record. 't.,

In fact, statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act B ei'tjoys the powers of the Civil Court as well as the Revenue

Court as all matters pending before theCivif 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 C upon any matter of title or right to inherit the property etc.

I Undoubtedly, there.are concurrent findings of facts recorded by three authorities under the Consolidation Act after appreciating the entire evidence on record. The authorities D have recorded following findings of facts:-

" H

(1)'.

Chandra Deo Singh was having relationship with Smt. Shakuntafa for long time; ·

(II) After the death of tis wife Sonbarsa in 1945, E Chandra Deo Singh had five-in-relationship, with Smt. Shakuntala and started living as husband and wife; ·

(Ill) Chandra Deo Singh started living with Smt. ··· F Shakuntafa in a different village nam_efy, Murdah in 1960-1961.

(IV) Their relationship continued tiff the death of Chandra Deo Singh on 31.12.1979 and therefore, they lived together as husband and wife for a long period; G

(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

8 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 C interference was required with same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. ·

8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing . - •l for the appellants persuaded us to have recourse to the unusual procedure submitting that in spite of concurrent findings of facts D by courts below, this Court must appreciate the evidence itslf

for the reason that find\ngs of facts so recorded are pervere.

He has placed a very heavy reliance on the documents the . .. l appellants have submitted and contended. that the saJ; d documents are admissible under Section 35 of the Indian E Evidence Act, 1872 (hereir; iafter called the 'Evidence Act') and mere reading of those dpcuments would not leave any doubt that the findings recorded by the courtsbelow are contrary o the evidence on record. In order to substantiate his submissio.n. he has placed reliance on large number of judgments of this F 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 G Lists and other documents prepared by the authorised persons in exercise of their official duty. Annxure 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:- H

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 41

AND ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Electoral S.No. House Name& Male/ Age Rolls for No.

Father/ Female year of Husband/ Mother's Name

1975 128 20 Smt. Shakuntala- Female '34 Saraswati

' - - 1979 138 20 Smt. Shakuntala- Female 36 Saraswati

1980 157 20 Smt. Shakuntala- Female 41 Saraswati ·

9. These entries are very relevant to determine the controversy regarding the date of birth of the respondents and D 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 E 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 F 4 t 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 G competent court dated 31.7.1984. According to that Asha Devi, daughter of Smt. Shakuntala and sister of respondents was born on 7. 7.1951. Therefore, ff-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 H document of 1979, Smt. Shakuntala was born in 1943 and she

,;/ /'/

 A 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. Shaku.ntala. As per Annexure P-4, B 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 Anne~.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. c

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 15.7.1940. If this document is taken to be true and D 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~ E

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 &' G Ors. Al R 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 H combined. A document may be admissible and yet may

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 43

AND ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

<not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value A 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, 8

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 C 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 0 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.

E 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 these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made F 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 prciof required herein is G 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 H

A Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. lkram Hussain Vs. The State of UP. & 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

8 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 recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/ C 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 D is of his/her parents, if it is supported by unimpechable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the unimpechable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, Government E 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

F 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 and 61, etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person G having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, tinie 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

MADAN MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. v. RAJNI KANT 45

AND ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

600, this Court, placing reliance upon its earlier decision in Lata A 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 \Nife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.

21. The courts have consistently held that the law presume$ 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 D Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135; Gokalchand Vs ..

Parvin Kumar, 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 E 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.

Shak.untala was born near about 1941. If the documents filed

by the appellants are taken to be true, we will have to record a G 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 Kantrespondent no.1, contained in Annexure P8 is taken to be true H

A 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 birth in 1941. If all the said documents are accepted, they would simply lead not only to 8 improbabilities and impossibilities but absurdity also. It is most

IJnfortunate 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 c 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 reappreciation of the evidence as the appeal is based on totally unreliable/contradicting documents and not worth placing any D reliance. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

8.8.B.

Appeal dismissed.