Holding

A baptism certificate that expressly states it was read and checked before the godparents, and is reflected in the birth certificate, is admissible and sufficient to establish legitimation, and the derived birth certificate is valid evidence.

Summary

The appellant sought to establish his right to inherit from his grandmother by proving that his mother, Maria Fonseca, had been legitimated through baptism. He relied on a birth certificate issued by the Directorate of Archives, which was based on a baptismal record that noted the names of the mother, grandparents and godparents and stated that the record was read and checked before the godparents. The trial court accepted this evidence, holding that the baptism certificate created a presumption of the mother's presence and legitimation. The District Judge reversed, contending that the baptism record did not expressly show the presence of the godparents and therefore could not be relied upon, rendering the birth certificate invalid. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the baptism certificate, by expressly stating it was read and checked before the godparents and being reflected in the birth certificate, is admissible and sufficient to prove legitimation. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the District Judge and restored the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a baptism certificate that records it was read and checked before the godparents is sufficient to establish legitimation under Christian law.
Whether a birth certificate derived from such a baptism record can be admitted as proof of legitimation.
Whether the absence of the mother's signature on the baptism record defeats the presumption of her consent and legitimation.
Whether the appellant has locus standi to claim inheritance based on the alleged legitimation of his mother.

Subjects

Christian lawbaptismlegitimationbirth certificateinheritancelocus standipartitionevidence

Judgment

LUIS CAETANO VIEGAS A
v.
ESTRELINA MARIANA R.M.A. DA 'COSTA AND ORS.

MAY 7,2002

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B

Christian law-Baptism-legitimization-Proof-Birth certificate
indicating that baptism record was checked before god parents-Trial Court
upheld legitimization relying on baptism certificate-Appellate court rejected C
baptism certificate as it did not indicate presence of god parents and birth
certificate rejected since it proceeded on baptism certificate-On appeal-
Held, baptism certificate not liable to be discarded and can be held to be
made before godparents in view of birth certificate.

In the course of inventory proceedings filed by appellant for partition of D
inheritance of his grandmother (mother's mother), question arose as to whether
mother of appellant was legitimized by his grandmother.
.>

In order to prove legitimization, appellant produced birth certificate of
his mother which was based on baptism certificate and the same indicated that
baptism record was checked before, godparents. The certificate was questioned E
on the ground that it did not contain mother's signature throwing doubt as to
whether she consented to the ceremony of legitimising her daughter.

Trial Court allowed the claim of the appellant relying on the baptism
certificate as the same recorded the name of the mother, grand parents and F
god parents, presuming the natural presence of mother at the time of baptism
as respondents had failed to bring any evidence to counter the natural
presumption.

In appeal, District Judge held that there is no legal recognition of
legitimacy by any proper deed as the baptism certificate could not be relied G
upon since it did not indicate as to whether both or either of the god parents
were present; that the birth certificate proceeds on the baptism certificate,
which was not valid.

Writ Petition against the order of the District Judge was dismissed by
849 11
y
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A High Court. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: If the birth certificate is a true reflection of the baptism record
and it contains the fact that it was read and checked before the godparents, the
B same need not be discarded and it must be held that the same had been made
in the presence of both godp;.rents. In the facts of the case, trial court was,
justified in the conch1s10n it '"!!ached and not the District Judge who proceeded
on misreading of the record. f853-D, El -
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3476 of2001.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.2000 of the Mumbai High
Court in W.P. No. 308 of2000.

Prashant Kumar, Ms. Triveni Potekar and Chander Shekhar Ashri for
D the Appellant.
Ms. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and Ms. Anu Mehta for M/s. K.L.
Mehta and Co. for the Respondents. '-·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E RAJENDRA BABU, J. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as
follows:

Rosa Fonseca had married Antonio D'Costa on 15.4.1889 and a male
child Jose Philipe was born to them. The said Antonio D'Costa died in 1892,
and almost seven years after his death, his wife Rosa Fonseca gave birth to
F a daughter in 1899. On 21.2.1903, the baby girl was baptised and named Maria
{
Da Graca Albertina Luiza Fonseca and the date and time of her birth were
recorded in the Parochial Book of Records of Baptism of the Taleigao Church.
The names of the maternal grandparents were mentioned and the godfather
and godmother also signed the register respectively. In 1933, the daughter
G Maria Fonseca married Camilo Viegas and in 1935 the appellant was born out <
of this wedlock. Their marriage certificate dated 4.5.1933, stated that Maria
Fonseca was an illegitimate child and only mentioned the name of the mother.
In 1952, Rosa Fonseca, the grandmother and in 1967 Maria Fonseca, the
mother died.

H In 1985, the appellant filed inventory proceedings for partition of
LUIS CAETANO VIEGAS 1• ESTRELINA MARIANA R.M A. DA 'COSTA[ RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 85}

inheritance of Rosa Fonseca and Antonio D'Costa in the Court of Civil Judge A
-~ [Senior Division]. The locus standi of the appellant was challenged by the
<:;abeca-de-Casal [Head of family] on the ground that the appellant is not an
heir of the deceased person Rosa Fonseca. The inventory proceedings were
restricted to the estate of Rosa Fonseca only making her the sole inventariado
in the matter.
B
The Trial Court decided that the said proceedings were not maintainable
and an appeal against the order of the Trial Court was preferred in the High
Court of Bombay at Panaji. The High Court set aside the order of the Trial
Court and remanded the matter for dealing with it afresh. On remand, the Trial
Court passed an order observing that Maria Fonseca had not been legitimised C
as per law and she had no right to the estate of Rosa Fonseca. The same issue
came up in appeal before the High Court in appeal No. 34/1996 wherein the
High Court once again remanded the matter to the Trial Court, directing that
the arguments of the appellant must be taken into account for deciding the
case. After remand, on the second occasion, the Trial Court by an order dated
4.9. I 999 rejected the challenge to locus standi of the appellant and observed D
that the appellant was entitled to participate in the inheritance proceedings
to the estate of Rosa Fonseca. Challenging this order, the respondents filed
an appeal, before the Additional District Judge, North Goa, who held by an
order made on 20.7.2000 that there was no proper legitimation of Maria
Fonseca and hence, the appellant is not an heir.
E
On 30.8.2000, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dated 20.7.2000. The
High Court by an order made on 9. l l.2000 dismissed the writ petition and
upheld the order of the Additional District Judge. Hence this appeal by
special leave has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated F
) 9. l l.2000 dismissing the writ petition.

The question that needs to be decided is whether Maria Fonseca was
legitimized by her mother, Rosa Fonseca. For this purpose, the appellant
produced the birth certificate of his mother Maria Fonseca issued by the
Directorate of Archives, Panaji, which was based on the baptism certificate G
issued by the local church. The Trial Court held that Maria Fonseca was
baptized on 2 l.2.1903 at home as she was ill and her life was at peril; that she
was born on 15.4.1899 at 3.00 a.m. of an unknown father and the mother is
l Rosa Fonseca; that this was enough to hold that she was legally recognised;
that the baptism certificate recorded the names of the mother, grandparents H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) 3 S.C.R.

A and godparents; but it was questioned on the ground that it did not contain
mother's signature throwing doubt as to whether she had consented to the '<--
ceremony of legitimizing her daughter; that the respondents also failed to
bring any evidence to counter the natural presumption of the presence of the
mother Rosa Fonseca at the time of baptism. Hence the Trial Court allowed
the claim of the appellant.
B
In appeal the le?.~ned District Judge held that in order to solemnize
baptism, the names of God parents should be entered in the record and the ....-
presence of either of the God parents is absolutely necessary and should be
signed by the Parochial Authority; that, the baptism certificate relied upon by
...
c the appellant does not indicate that both or either of the God parents were
present in proof of which their signatures were taken; that, baptism certificate
could not be relied upon; that, the birth certificate proceeds on the basis of
baptism certificate, which is not valid; that, thus there is no legal recognition
of legitimacy by any proper deed. On this basis, he allowed the appeal.

D In the writ petition, the High Court without assigning any separate
reasoning held that the District Judge took into consideration the entire
material on record and on proper application of law rejected the case of the
~
appellant and dismissed the writ petition.

What we have to see in this matter is whether the test indicated by the
E learned District Judge has been complied with by the parties concerned. A
true translation of the birth certificate is made available and reads as follows:

"In Margin: No. 78 Maria Graca Albertina daughter of Roza Maria
Anna Fonseca, from Gally.

F In the Text: On the twenty-first day of the month of February in the
year one thousand nine hundred and three in this Parish Church of
Taleigao, Taluka islands of Goa (Tiswadi), of the Archdiocese of Goa,
with my permission, Fr. Floriano Jose Joaquim Joao Fernandes, resident
. of this locality, put the holy oils on a person of female sex as she had
been duly baptised in home because she was in peril of her life by <
G Francisco Xavier Raymando Fernandes, former Curate of this Parish,
with the name Maria Graca Albertina Luisa who was born in the ward
Gally of this Parish at three hours of the morning of the fifteenth day
of April in the last year (sic) one thousand eight hundred ninety-nine
free legitimate daughter, second in the order of children and the only
one with this name, I mean daughter of unknown father and of Roza
H
LUIS CAETANO VIEGAS v. ESTRELINA MARIANA RM.A. DA "COSTA( RAJENDRA BABU. J] 853

Maria Anna Fonseca, native of Para and resident of Taleigao, widow, A
landed proprietor whose income does not amount to three hundred
"reis" per day, paternal (sic) grand-daughter of Paulo Antonio de
Fonseca and of Maria Angelica Fernandes, both natives of Parra. Her
godfather was Antonio Augusto Milares da Piedade Lobo, bachelor,
Land Surveyor, resident of Santo Estevao and godmother Monica
Maria Eulalia Francisco Gomes, unmarried, native of Ucassaim B

- ;
represented in this act by Maria Francisca Gonsalves, unmarried, from
Taleigao, all of whom I acknowledge them as proper persons. And tq
be known I made this record in duplicate which, after it was read
and checked before the godparents, I sign it along with them. Date
as mentioned above, Correction follows sd/- Ant. Augt. Milagres da C
P. lobo. Sd/- Maria Francisca Xavier Gonsalves. The parson sdl-Fr.
Jose Lourenco de Silva. "

The (italicised) portion stated above clearly indicates that the baptismal
record was read and checked before the godparents, and the same has been
signed by the Parson along with them. The learned District Judge felt that the D
certificate of registration of birth merely proceeds on the basis of the baptism
.J certificate. If the birth certificate is a true reflection of the baptism record and
it contains the fact that it was read and checked before the godparents, the
same need not be discarded and it must be held that ihe same had been made
in the presence of both god parents. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court
was justified in the conclusion it reached and not the learned District Judge E
who proceeded on misreading of the record. Hence the High Court ought to
have reversed the finding recorded by the learned District Judge who ignored
this crucial aspect in the course of his order.

ln the result, we set aside the order made by the High Court and the F
order of the learned District Judge while restoring the order made by the Trial
Court. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.