Shakubai @ Geetabai Vs. Kanchanbai and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 1. the unsuccessful defendant no. 6. the trial court held as under :prativadini ke anusar uska natra prativadi kramank 3 se hindu vivah adhiniyam hone ke bad hua tha, es, vajah se kathit natra vadinee apar prativadi kramank 3 ke vivahit sambandh kayam rahte hue dhara 5(1) hindu vivah adhiniyam ke antargat avaidh evam shoonya hat. 9.after perusal of the evidential material produced by the parties, i find that the conclusion recorded by the trial court is well supported from the evidential material. ' 10. in view of the aforesaid position, i am satisfied that the judgment and decree, under challenge, are without fault or flaw and do not merit to be mortalised.n.r. tiwari, j.1. the unsuccessful defendant no. 1 has filed this appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure (though wrongly mentioned as appeal under section 28 of hindu marriage act in the memorandum of appeal but clarified as noted in the proceedings dated 25.7.1985) against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1983 rendered by additional judge neemuch to the court of district judge, mandsaur in c.o.s. no. 22-a / 80.2. the facts lie in a narrow compass. the respondent no. 1 (kanchanbai) claimed to be legally wedded wife of respondent no. 3 (mohanlal). the respondent no. 3 took the appellant as his wife on the basis of natra ceremony. aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking declaration that such natra was invalid, and did not give the appellant the status of wife of respondent no. 3. after contest, the trial court passed the decree and declared that natra between the appellant and respondent no. 3 was illegal and void. the relief of permanent injunction was, however, refused. against this judgment and decree, the appellant (defendant no. 1 in the suit) has filed this appeal.3. i have heard mr. c.r. joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. b.l. pavecha, learned senior counsel with mr. a. salim, for respondents nos. 1, 3 and 4. none appeared for respondent no. 2.4. mr. joshi submitted that the evidence is not properly appreciated by the trial court. mr. pavecha on the other hand dubbed the aforesaid contention as non-meritorious and contended that the conclusion is on firm foundation.5. i proceed to examine the worth of the rival contentions.6. the trial court held as under :'prativadini ke anusar uska natra prativadi kramank 3 se hindu vivah adhiniyam hone ke bad hua tha, es, vajah se kathit natra vadinee apar prativadi kramank 3 ke vivahit sambandh kayam rahte hue dhara 5(1) hindu vivah adhiniyam ke antargat avaidh evam shoonya hat.'xxx xxx xxx xxx7. section 5 of the hindu marriage act provides that marriage may be solemnised between any two hindus, if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. section 11 of the hindu marriage act envisaged that any marriage solemnised after the commencement of this act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5. respondent no. 1 is not a party to such marriage and as such the only remedy available to her was to file civil suit to seek declaration.8. i have perused the statements of pw-1 smt. kanchan, pw-2 mangilal s/o kishanchand, pw-3 mangilal s/o kishanaji, pw-4 narayan, pw-5 heeralal examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 (plaintiff). i have also perused the statements of dw-1 mohanlal (defendant no. 3), sagarmal, examined by defendant no. 4; dw-1 sukhibai (appellant) and dw-2 radhakishan.9.after perusal of the evidential material produced by the parties, i find that the conclusion recorded by the trial court is well supported from the evidential material. as i am in general agreement with the view held by the trial court, it is not necessary to restate the effect of the evidence or document the factual matrix. in air 1967 sc 1124 (girijanandini devi and ors. v. bijendra narain choudhary), it is held as under :'it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice.'10. in view of the aforesaid position, i am satisfied that the judgment and decree, under challenge, are without fault or flaw and do not merit to be mortalised.11. this judgment of affirmance turns on appreciation of facts. the finding of fact is proper and is not shown to be vitiated in any manner.12. in the result, this appeal is found to be devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. counsel's fee is fixed at rs. 750/-, if certified.13. decree be drawn up accordingly.