Section 120 Evidence Act In Consonance With ‘Ardha Nareshwar’ Concept: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court explained that while considering Section 120 of IEA, the husband and wife can depose for one another, and as such, the husband of the Plaintiff can give oral evidence, which shall be confined to the facts within his knowledge.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has remarked that Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is enunciated on the well-founded Indian mythology according to which the husband and wife are believed to be one person and not separate.
The Court remarked thus in an Appeal preferred against the First Appellate Court’s Judgment which dismissed the Appeal of the Defendants challenging the Decree in a Suit for specific performance of the property in dispute, filed by the Plaintiffs.
A Single Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta observed, “Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the competency of the husband to appear as witness for the wife and vice versa. … The above rule of law appears to be enunciated on the well-founded Indian mythology, as per which husband and wife are believed to be one person and not separate. It is in consonance with the concept of Ardha Nareshwar. Even in the western culture, wife is referred as a better half i.e., to be the part of same person.”
The Bench added that while considering Section 120 of IEA, the husband and wife can depose for one another and as such, the husband of the Plaintiff can give oral evidence, which shall be confined to the facts within his knowledge.
Senior Advocate M.L. Sarin and Advocate Naina Bajaj appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants while Senior Advocate Amit Jain appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs.
Facts of the Case
The Defendant was the owner of an agricultural land who agreed to sell the same to the Plaintiffs vide an Agreement to Sell with some terms and conditions. The possession of the land was delivered to the Plaintiffs and a Sale Deed was executed and registered. As per the agreement, the Defendant would give one month notice to the vendees for the execution and registration of Sale Deed after getting the Partition Order incorporated in the revenue record. Since the partition proceedings were not complete up to a specific period, a Supplementary Agreement was executed amongst the parties, extending the date of registration for another two months of the information of decision of the Appeal. The Plaintiffs claimed that after obtaining possession of the Suit land they installed a tubewell and constructed a pacca room at their own expense before the completion of partition proceedings, however, during the partition, the tubewell and room were allotted to the co-sharer and brother of the Defendant.
The plaintiffs contended that since they had constructed the room at their own cost, the amount received by the Defendant should be adjusted against the total sale price of ₹1,62,000/, making the paid amount to be ₹1,72,000/-. When the Defendant entered into an Agreement to Sell with another, the Plaintiffs alleged that the same was executed with a mala fide intention. They further claimed that they had never parted with the possession of the land. Resultantly, they filed a Suit claiming the Decree for specific performance on payment of balance sale consideration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on to restrain the Defendants from interfering in their possession. The Trial Court decreed the said Suit and subsequently, the Defendants filed an Appeal, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the Defendants approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “This provision affirms the competency of par es and their spouses as witnesses in both civil and criminal proceedings. It establishes that individuals directly involved in a case, along with their spouses, are legally permitted to testify. In civil disputes concerning rights, obligations, or property, both parties are considered competent witnesses, and their spouses may also testify, if their evidence is relevant. This means that either party can provide testimony in support of their claims or defense, and their spouse can do the same if relevant to the case. The law does not bar spousal testimony, acknowledging its potential significance to the case.”
The Court said that though there cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law but when husband or wife depose on behalf of the plaintiff spouse, then the said principle of law will not be applicable. It further elucidated that a non-litigant spouse is a competent witness for the other spouse to litigation.
“Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the husband to give evidence in place and instead of his wife and vice versa even in the absence of a written Authority or Power of Attorney and such a witness is entitled to depose not only the facts within his/her knowledge but also within the knowledge of his/her spouse”, it added.
The Court, therefore, held that the husband of one of the Plaintiffs was competent to depose on behalf of the said Plaintiff. It also noted that where performance of intending sale is conditional upon certain acts to be performed by the seller, buyer needs to perform his part only after those acts are performed by the seller.
“In the present case, defendant No.1-vendor himself having not performed his part of contract, he cannot question the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract”, it said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Kishan Chand (through LRs) and Others v. Balbir Singh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:043213)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate M.L. Sarin, Advocates Naina Bajaj, and Ritesh Aggarwal.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Amit Jain and Advocate Anupam Mathur.
