Back
G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Revanasiddappa – Appellant
Versus
Mallikarjun – Respondent
Statutes Discussed
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16(3): Explicitly states that children of a void or voidable marriage are not conferred any rights in or to the property of any person other than their parents. Directly responsive to the query as grandfather is not a parent. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000507750011] [1000507750012]
• Constitution of India - Article 300A: Right to property is a constitutional right with guarantee against deprivation save by authority of law; Section 16(3) limits such children's rights to parents' property only, without further restriction. Directly relevant as it supports no deprivation of rights beyond parents' property, excluding grandfather's property. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000507750038]
Case Laws Discussed
No relevant case laws found in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
• Children born of void or voidable marriages have rights only in the property of their parents (self-acquired or ancestral share falling to the parent), and no rights in the property of any other person, including relations like grandfather, as per the express limitation in Section 16(3). Directly responsive to the query. [1000507750012] [1000507750025] [1000507750026] (!) (!)
Court Observations
• "Child of a void or voidable marriage can only claim rights to property of his parents, and no one else - Property may be self-acquired property or ancestral property - But, such children would not be entitled to any rights in property of any person who is not his parent." Directly confirms no rights in grandfather's property. [judgement_act_referred]
• "Section 16 contains an express mandate that such children are only entitled to the property of their parents, and not of any other relation." Directly relevant as grandfather is another relation. [1000507750024]
• "The prohibition contained in Section 16(3) will apply to such children with respect to property of any person other than their parents." Directly responsive, excluding grandfather's property. [1000507750025]
Final Conclusion
• The Supreme Court expressed the view that children from void marriages are entitled to parents' property including ancestral share, but rights are confined to parents' property only and do not extend to any other person; however, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. Supports the query as no rights in grandfather's property. [1000507750035] (!) (!) [1000507750010]
JUDGMENT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first Defendant had two wives- the third Plaintiff (the first wife) and the fourth Defendant (the second wife). The first Defendant had two children from the first wife, the third Plaintiff, namely, the first and second Plaintiffs; and another two children from his second wife, the fourth Defendant namely, the second and third Defendant.
3. The Plaintiffs (first wife and her two children) had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the Defendants for their 1/4th share each with respect to ancestral property which had been given to the first Defendant by way of grant. The Plaintiffs contended that the first Defendant had married the fourth Defendant while his first marriage was subsisting and, therefore, the children born in the said second marriage would not be entitled to any share in the ancestral property of the first Defendant as they were not coparceners.
4. However, the Defendants contended that the properties were not ancestral properties at all but were self-acquired properties, except for one property which was ancestral. Further, the first Defendant also contended that it was the fourth Defendant who w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
