Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Revanasiddappa and Anr.
Vs.
Mallikarjun and Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12639/09)
Decided On: 31.03.2011
(2003) 1 SCC 730; (2006) 9 SCC 612; AIR 2010 SC 2685 - Distinguished.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 112 – Legitimacy - With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, what was illegitimate in past may be legitimate today - Concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus-Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through a process of amendment. (Para 27)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16(3) - Right of children from void marriage - Benefit given under amended Section 16 is available only in cases where there is a marriage but such marriage is void or voidable. (Paras 33 and 34)
Interpretation of Statute - Court cannot interpret a socially beneficial legislation on the basis as if words therein are cast in stone-Such legislation must be given purposive interpretation to further and not to frustrate eminently desirable social purpose of removing stigma on such children from void marriage having regard to equity of Statute and principles voiced under Directive Principles of State Policy. (Para 37)
(1973) 4 SCC 225 - Relied.
Constitution of India - Articles 39(f) and 300A - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16(3) - Right to property is no longer fundamental right but a Constitutional right - Article 300A contains guarantee against deprivation of property right save by authority of law- Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on property right of children from void marriage except limiting it to property of their parents.
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 was his legally wedded wife, and not the third Plaintiff and that the Plaintiffs had no right to claim partition. Further, the first Defendant also alleged that an oral partition had already taken place earlier.
5. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 28.7.2005, held that the first Defendant had not been able to prove oral partition nor that he had divorced the third Plaintiff. The second marriage of the first Defendant with the fourth Defendant was found to be void, as it had been conducted while his first marriage was still legally subsisting. Thus, the Trial Court held that the third Plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the first Defendant and thus was entitled to claim partition. Further, the properties were not self-acquired but ancestral properties and, therefore, the Plaintiffs were entitled to claim partition of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs and the first Defendant were held entitled to 1/4th share each in all the suit properties.
6. Aggrieved, the Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court, vide order dated 23.11.2005, re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court that the suit properties were ancestral properties and that the third Plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the first Defendant, whose marriage with the fourth Defendant was void and thus children from such marriage were illegitimate. However, the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court that illegitimate children had no right to a share in the coparcenary property by relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Sarojamma and Ors. v. Smt. Neelamma and Ors. ILR 2005 Kar 3293.
7. The Appellate Court held that children born from a void marriage were to be treated at par with coparceners and they were also entitled to the joint family properties of the first Defendant. Accordingly, the Appellate Court held that the Plaintiffs, along with the first, second and third Defendants were entitled to equal share of 1/6th each in the ancestral properties.
8. The Plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Appellate Court, preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The substantial questions of law before the High Court were:
a) Whether the illegitimate children born out of void marriage are regarded as coparceners by virtue of the amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
b) At a partition between the coparceners whether they are entitled to a share in the said properties.
9. The High Court stated that the said questions were no more res integra and had been considered in the judgment of Sri Kenchegowda v. K.B. Krishnappa and Ors. ILR 2008 Kar 3453. It observed that both the lower courts had concurrently
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
