Supreme Court of India

BADRI PRASAD versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Decided: 1 August 1978
Judges listed: V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Dismissed

Citations

Official

[1979] 1 S.C.R. 1 · 1978 INSC 119

Also cited as

(1978) 3 SCC 527 (31 citing judgments)
AIR 1978 SC 1557 (13 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 9 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

KAMALA AND OTHERS versus M.R. MOHAN KUMAR 24 October 2018 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 16
HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. versus KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS. 6 October 2016 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 27
INDRA SARMA versus V.K.V. SARMA 26 November 2013 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 56
CHANMUNIYA versus VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR. 7 October 2010 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 18
M. YOGENDRA & ORS. versus LEELAMMA N. & ORS 29 July 2009 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 9

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

KRISHNA IYER, J.-For around 50 years, a man and a woman, as the facts in this case unfold, lived as husband and wife. An adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage between the two, by the petitioner in thi~ special leave petition, has been negatived by the High Court. A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Althongh the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. In this view, the contention of Shri Garg, for the petitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses, deserves no consideration. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few wi.ll succeed. The contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation. The special leave petitions are dismissed. S.R. Petitions dismissed.

p. 1, margin E