The Kerala High Court Evidence Act Section 32(5) has received authoritative interpretation in a recent judgment examining the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person acknowledging blood relationships prior to the commencement of any dispute.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, was dealing with an appeal arising from a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, where one daughter was excluded from succession to ancestral properties.
The properties originally belonged to Krishnan, who died intestate. The exclusion was based on the contention that the second plaintiff daughter was born within four months of her parents’ marriage, thereby questioning her legitimacy.
Dispute Over Paternity and Succession Rights
The plaintiffs contended that although the child was born within four months of marriage, she was the biological daughter of Krishnan, as the marital relationship was preceded by a consensual relationship.
The defendants denied any premarital relationship and disputed the claim of paternity.
The Trial Court rejected the claim of the second plaintiff and directed partition only among the wife and minor sons, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish paternity.
Applicability of Evidence Act Section 32(5)
In appeal, the High Court examined whether the evidence on record satisfied the requirements under Kerala High Court Evidence Act Section 32(5).
The Court placed reliance on consistent statements made by the deceased acknowledging the child as his daughter, coupled with documentary evidence such as passport records, pension payment orders, and Employees’ Provident Fund passbooks reflecting the same relationship.
The Bench held that statements made by a deceased person relating to blood relationships are relevant facts under Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act, provided the declarant had special means of knowledge and the statements were made before any dispute arose.
Conduct as Relevant Opinion Under Section 50
The Court further examined Section 50 of the Evidence Act and held that acknowledgment of a child through conduct constitutes a relevant opinion. Such opinion is not confined to verbal assertions but extends to conduct reflecting belief or conviction regarding the relationship.
Relying on Dolgobinda Paricha v Nimai Charan Misra, the Bench observed that such conduct can be proved by witnesses who directly perceived it, satisfying the requirements of Section 60 of the Evidence Act.
The testimony of the wife, examined as PW1, regarding Krishnan’s consistent treatment of the child as his own, was found to carry substantial probative value.
Presumption of Legitimacy Under Section 112
Reiterating the statutory mandate of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court clarified that legitimacy depends on access between spouses and not on the timing of conception.
Relying on Kamti Devi v Poshi Ram, the Bench held that even a child born immediately after marriage is protected by the conclusive presumption of legitimacy unless non-access is conclusively proved.
No evidence of non-access was established in the present case.
Final Determination
Allowing the appeal, the Kerala High Court declared the second plaintiff to be the legitimate daughter of the intestate and entitled to succession as a Class I heir along with the other legal heirs.
The judgment conclusively affirms that Kerala High Court Evidence Act Section 32(5) permits reliance on pre-dispute statements of deceased persons acknowledging blood relationships, particularly when supported by consistent conduct and documentary evidence.
Case Details
- Court: Kerala High Court
- Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar
- Nature of Case: Partition Appeal
- Key Legal Provisions: Section 32(5), Section 50, and Section 112 of the Evidence Act
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
