Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the order of a decades-old lower court in a property dispute, calling for a unique analogy between Section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the mythological concept of Ardhrishwara is a symbol of the deity, a semi-female deity, which is a symbol of musculin and Feminine Energies.
Section 120 of the Act belongs to the parties for the civil suit and their spouse, stating that in civil proceedings, parties and their husband -wife are capable witnesses, and in criminal proceedings, the accused’s husband is also a competent witness.
Justice Deepak Gupta, dismissing an appeal against the order of the lower court, argued in a decision on 1 April that the ancient Indian concept of Ardhishwara underlines the legal provision, allowing the husband and wife to testify from each side. Thus, the judge strengthened the merit of a major witness in the case and confirmed the claim of the plaintiff in Faridabad.
Show full article
The analogy was drawn in the context of evaluation of witness testimony. Justice Gupta saw that Section 120 reflects the idea of husband and wife as a “one person” in Indian mythology.
He said, “Even in Western culture, a wife is referred to as a part of the same person as a better half,” he said, insisting that this unity allows one spouse from another, even on matters of personal knowledge such as readiness and desire in a contract dispute.
Also read: HC allows the survivors of alleged marital rape to end pregnancy – ‘Remember of trauma, pain’
A look at the case
The land battle in the court goes back to Chand on April 28, 1984 in an agreement-to-sale, when Kishan Chand, the original owner of the disputed land in Dulhapur village of Balbgarh, Haryana, agreed to sell it to the plaintiff, which agreed to sell the plaintiff for Rs 4,43,115 per acre.
The deal saw the initial payment of Rs 1,00,000, with the possession of Kishan Chand’s part (in a large plot) handed over to buyers.
On June 10, 1985, a supplementary agreement extended the timeline for the execution of sales deeds, contingent on land division proceedings and an income tax withdrawal certificate, additional Rs 50,000. Over time, the plaintiff claims to pay Rs 1,72,000, including a tubewell and adjustment for the room that he created which was later allocated to Kishan Chand’s brother during land division.
The plaintiff alleged that despite his readiness to pay the remaining amount and execute the sales deed, Kishan Chand failed to secure the approval for the sale of his plot and instead entered a subsequent agreement on July 17, 1986, to sell the same land to another party (Defendant No. 2) for Rs 4,00,000, to appoint a general strength (Defendant No.3).
It inspired the plaintiff to enter a suit for the specific performance of the contract in 1986 (April 1984), which was decided by the trial court in his favor on 17 April 1995.
The first appellate court upheld the decision on August 19, 1998, leading the defendants – now represented by Kishan Chand’s legal heirs and others – to extend the matter to the High Court.
The heirs of Kishan Chand challenged the findings of the lower courts on many grounds: the readiness and desire of the plaintiff, and the maintenance of the suit.
For his argument, the central claim was that Balbir Singh and others dependence on Summuran Singh – the hour of Surinder Kaur and father of two others – was invalid as a witness in the case through the Power of Attorney of 1991.
Justice Gupta, however, highlighted the deep involvement of Samporan Singh in the transaction, by calling for Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act – not only as a lawyer, but as a family member from the beginning to the deal from the beginning.
The judge addressed him in 1986 by a legal notice by Kishan Chand in 1986, and addressed his presence during a handover after Partition on 30 May, 1986.
Justice Gupta wrote, “Samporan Singh has been associated with transactions from the beginning.”
Drawing the Ardhanarishwara analogy, the court said that as a husband of a plaintiff, Samporan Singh was legally able to testify on his behalf, even on readiness and will, without the need for a formal power at every stage.
This exception, Gupta mentioned, aligns with the attitude of the Supreme Court Man Kaur vs Hartar Singh Sangh (2010), where close family members can manage the case testimony in such cases.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)