'Once Plea Of Mistake Is Raised, It Is For The Party Pleading Mistake To Prove The Same': Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a person, who raises a plea of mistake in order to controvert any material produced before the Court, bears the burden to establish such mistake. A Single Bench of Justice R. Subramanian therefore dismissed the plea of a woman, claiming that she is a Hindu and that she was mistakenly shown as a Christian in her school certificates. The Bench also allowed the prayer made by the woman's husband, to declare their marriage a nullity, as it was based on a misrepresentation that the former is a Hindu. The Court observed, "the courts below were not right in placing burden of proving misrepresentation on the appellant and concluding that the appellant has not discharged the burden. Once the plea of mistake is raised, it is for the party pleading mistake to prove the same. The documentary evidence that is made available would clearly point out the fact that there was a misrepresentation with reference to the material fact namely, the religion of the respondent at the time of marriage." Background The Appellant in this case had sought a declaration that the marriage between him and the Respondent wife is null and void for violation of conditions under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He alleged that after their marriage in 2003, he found that the Respondent is a Christian and on making certain enquiries, he also discovered her school certificates and a Community certificate, indicating that she and her family follow the Christian faith. He therefore argued that the Respondent misrepresented their religion and obtained his consent by practising fraud. The Respondent on the other hand submitted that she and her family were always Hindus. As regards the entries in the school records, it was her contention that they were made by mistake as her father did not accompany her for admitting her in school. She also produced a community certificate dated June 2005, showing that she is a Hindu Nadar. Findings At the outset, the Single Judge noted that there was plethora of documentary evidence available to support the claim of the Appellant that the Respondent was a Christian by birth and she was practising Christianity throughout her life. "This is evidenced by indisputable documents in the form of educational records," it observed. The Bench noted that there is evidence available to show that the Respondent had applied for Community Certificate as Christian at the Office of the Tahsildar. Further, the documents produced by the Respondent to show that she is a Hindu, being a Community Certificate stating her to be a Hindu Nadar, was obtained after initiation of the legal proceedings by the Appellant. At this juncture, the Single Bench observed, "It is admitted by the respondent that she has been described as a Christian in all her educational records. She would claim that it is a mistake. Once the fact that there has been such wrong description is admitted, it is for the person, who claims that the wrong description is a result of mistake, to prove the same." In this backdrop, it held that the Respondent has not established the plea of mistake raised by her and various documents produced by the Appellant demonstrate that she has described herself as a Christian. Before parting, the Bench also criticized the lower courts for ignoring the 'unimpeachable evidence' produced by the Appellant. It observed, "The courts below had not appreciated the evidence, which are available on record. They had chosen to ignore very crucial documentary evidence which had resulted in their findings being against the documentary evidence that is available on record. I am constrained to point out that the lower appellate court had not adverted to the fact that the various documents particularly the official documents which are maintained by people, who are statutorily obliged to maintain such documents disclose that the respondent is a Christian. It had chosen to rely upon documents that emanated after the filing of the original petition. The claim of mistake has been left unsubstantiated." Case Title: P. Sivakumar v. S. Beula Click Here To Download Order Read Order

'Once Plea Of Mistake Is Raised, It Is For The Party Pleading Mistake To Prove The Same': Madras High Court

Akshita Saxena

Tags