A significant legal case recently saw the Supreme Court of India delivering a judgment on a dispute regarding customary divorce and inheritance of property. The case involved a dispute between parties over the dissolution of marriage before the Applicable Act came into force, and the subsequent inheritance of land. Stay tuned to know about the details of the judgment and its impact on the parties involved.
Facts
- The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-original plaintiff, declaring the marriage between Dungaji and Kaveribai dissolved by customary divorce before the Act came into force.
- The property inherited by Kaveribai from her mother after divorce was not considered family property of Dungaji for surplus area determination under the Act.
- The Competent Authority’s order treating Kaveribai as a family member of Dungaji and including the inherited land as family land was declared null and void.
- Dungaji challenged the Competent Authority’s order in a civil court, but the suit was dismissed.
- Upon appeal, the First Appellate Court remanded the case for fresh consideration.
- The High Court quashed the previous judgments, decreeing in favor of the plaintiff, based on the finding of a customary divorce and non-compliance of mandatory provisions by the Competent Authority.
- The Trial Court and First Appellate Court’s decisions were overturned by the High Court’s judgment.
- Kaveribai, the ex-wife of Dungaji, started living with her mother after the divorce.
- Kaveribai inherited 19.89 hectares of land from her mother, which was not to be included in Dungaji’s family holdings.
- Kaveribai acknowledged the divorce and the inheritance of land in her written statement.
- The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Dungaji regarding the land ownership and divorce, leading Dungaji to appeal to the High Court.
- Dungaji claimed to have divorced Kaveribai due to constant quarrels after marrying his other wives, Kashibai and Nanibai.
- The land inherited by Kaveribai was mutated in her name, causing a dispute regarding its inclusion in Dungaji’s family holdings.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh and another party opposed Dungaji’s claims, denying the divorce and questioning the inclusion of Kaveribai’s inherited land.
Also Read: Address Update Requirement: Legal Implications for Corporate Entities
Issue
- The substantial questions of law raised in the High Court included the validity of the customary divorce between late Dungaji and late Smt. Kaveribai.
- The Courts below had found that the customary divorce was not proved, raising concerns about the validity of these findings.
- The oral evidence supported by documents and affidavits from both late Dungaji and late Smt. Kaveribai were not considered sufficiently by the lower Courts.
- No cross-examination or evidential rebuttal was conducted on the issue of the divorce, leading to doubts about the final decision.
- The suspicion that the divorce theory was fabricated to avoid provisions of the Ceiling Act was questioned.
- The inheritance of property by Smt. Kaveribai from her mother was also under scrutiny, as it was debated whether this could be counted as part of the family property of late Dungaji for the purpose of surplus declaration.
Also Read: Army Discharge Case: Upholding Justice for Long Service Rendered
Arguments
- The State of Madhya Pradesh argues that Dungaji failed to prove the factum of customary divorce and establish its existence in his society.
- The High Court erred in quashing the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the customary divorce pleaded by the plaintiff.
- The State asserts that the relief sought in the suit does not fall under the categories mentioned in Section 46 of the Act 1960.
- Citing relevant case laws, the State argues that the suit challenging the Order of the Competent Authority was not maintainable as the divorce was established.
- The State contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the lower courts.
- The State emphasizes that the High Court erred in not upholding the bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 46 of the Act 1960.
- The State points out that the evidence presented did not establish the customary divorce between Dungaji and Kaveribai.
- The State further argues that the High Court incorrectly quashed the Order declaring land as surplus based on the divorce.
- The State highlights that the plaintiff failed to prove the customary divorce, which was disbelieved by both lower courts.
- The State refers to the strict interpretation required for barring Civil Court jurisdiction as per legal precedents.
- Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent(s), argued that a procedural lapse by the Competent Authority occurred.
- Despite the procedural lapse, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be barred according to the learned Senior Counsel.
- The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Dhulabhai to support the argument.
Also Read: Justice Served: Supreme Court Ruling on CBI Inquiry against Army Officer
Analysis
- The Competent Authority declared 57.32 acres of land as surplus land on 18.05.1976 for Dungaji’s family.
- Concurrent findings of both lower courts disbelieved the claimed divorce between Dungaji and Kaveribai.
- Dungaji filed a suit challenging the Competent Authority’s order without appealing as per Act 1960, rendering it not maintainable.
- The Act required the wife’s land to be included in the husband’s family holding.
- High Court’s interference with lower courts’ findings was not justified as no claim of divorce was made before the Competent Authority.
- Orders of Competent Authority are appealable and revisionable under the Act 1960 (Section 41 and 42).
- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide Act 1960 related matters is barred under Section 46 of the Act.
- The High Court erred in setting aside the Competent Authority’s order on the question of divorce.
- Kaveribai sold land in 1971 under the name of Dungaji, indicating continuity of their marital status.
- Dismissal of Dungaji’s suit by Trial Court was correct as divorce was not proven as per custom.
- Second Appeal by the High Court overstepped its boundaries by disregarding lower courts’ findings.
- The suit challenging the Competent Authority’s order was not maintainable under Section 46 of the Act.
- Dungaji raised divorce claim much later to evade the provisions of the Ceiling Act 1960.
- No prior mention of divorce between Dungaji and Kaveribai was made, including before the Competent Authority.
- High Court used its CPC powers to decree the suit based on claimed divorce, overturning lower courts’ findings.
- Evidence and records supported lower courts’ findings that divorce was not proven as per customs.
- Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed Dungaji’s failure to prove claimed divorce.
- The High Court erred in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by the lower courts
- The Divorce Deed at Exhibit P5 was considered a fabricated document to circumvent the provisions of the Ceiling Act 1960
- The Trial Court’s assessment of the Divorce Deed as concocted was upheld
Decision
- High Court judgment dated 29.10.2010 is quashed and set aside
- Judgment and Decree passed by Trial Court confirmed by First Appellate Court is restored
- Present appeal succeeds with no costs incurred
- Suit filed by Dungaji is dismissed
Case Title: STATE OF M.P. Vs. DUNGAJI(D) BY LRS.
Case Number: C.A. No.-011326-011326 / 2011
