Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
RATHNAMMA & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUJATHAMMA AND ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3050 OF 2010
Decided on : 15-11-2019
Hindu Law – Partition – Ancestral property – Defendants have denied marriage of Plaintiff – As such, burden to prove marriage was on plaintiff alone – Plaintiff will be entitled to estate of son of defendant no. 1only if she proves her valid marriage – Plaintiff has not pleaded any custom permitting marriage within prohibited degree nor there is any proof of solemnization of any marriage by customary ceremonies and rites – Plaintiff will not be entitled to succeed only on the basis of alleged registration of agreement of marriage – In absence of customary ceremonies or custom permitting marriage between prohibited degree, plaintiff has no legal right to claim share in property only on the basis that some of witnesses produced by her admitted that she married son of defendant no. 1 – Plaintiff has not proved custom of marriage to her mother’s brother and/or judicial precedent recognizing such marriage – In absence of any precedent or custom of such marriage, no judicial notice can be taken of a custom – Plaintiff cannot succeed estate of son of defendant no. 1 on the basis of a marriage which she has failed to prove – Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored. [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 5, 7 and 11] (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Defendant No.2, defendant No.5 and legal heirs of defendant No.4 are in appeal aggrieved against judgment passed by High Court of Karnataka on 3rd April, 2008 dismissing their second appeal maintaining judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 2nd July, 2005 whereby suit for partition filed by plaintiff (Respondent) was decreed.
Findings of Court:
Plaintiff has not proved custom of marriage to her mother’s brother and/or judicial precedent recognizing such marriage. In absence of any precedent or custom of such marriage, no judicial notice can be taken of a custom as argued by counsel for plaintiff. In the absence of any pleading or proof of custom, the argument that in Vokkaliga community, such marriage can be performed cannot be accepted as no judicial precedent was brought to the notice of the Court that such a custom exists in the Vokkaliga community nor there is any instance quoted in evidence of existence of such custom.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The burden of proving the existence of a marriage rests solely on the plaintiff, and she failed to meet this burden. [12][14][18] - The plaintiff did not establish any custom or judicial precedent that permits marriage between prohibited relations, such as a niece marrying her maternal uncle. [15][17] - An agreement of marriage without evidence of customary rites or a formal marriage certificate is insufficient to prove a valid marriage. [13][14] - The trial court found the marriage void due to the parties being under the qualifying age and lacking the required ceremonial solemnization. [7] - The First Appellate Court’s finding that the marriage was valid was overturned, and the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s judgment. [8][19] - Consequently, the plaintiff cannot claim a share in the estate of the deceased son of Defendant No. 1. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Defendant No.2, defendant No.5 and legal heirs of defendant No.4 are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by High Court of Karnataka on 3rd April, 2008 dismissing their second appeal maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 2nd July, 2005 whereby the suit for partition filed by plaintiff Sujathamma was decreed.
2. The following Genealogical Tree would be necessary to appreciate the dispute between the parties:-
3. Defendant No. 1 Sonnappa died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind two sons - Venkatarayappa and predeceased son - Hanumanthappa and three daughters - Sonnamma, Kenchamma and Lakshmamma. Sonnamma, Kenchamma and Lakshmamma have been brought on record as legal heirs of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff - Sujathamma, maternal grand-daughter of Sonnappa, claims to have married Hanumanthappa on 7th March, 1986. Hanumanthappa died on 15th October, 1986. The claim of the plaintiff is that she is entitled to the share of the estate of Sonnappa, as wife of deceased Hanumanthappa. It is the said assertion which was accepted by the First Appellate Court and maintained by the High Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the civil suit with the assertion that the parties are related to each other as members of joint Hindu Undivided Family. The plaintiff asserted that the first defendant i.e. Sonnappa is her father-in-law. Since the property is said to be ancestral property and that property stands in the name of the first defendant Sonnappa, therefore, plaintiff claims that she is entitled to the share of Hanumanthappa as his wife.
5. The daughter of the first defendant was married to the father of the plaintiff. The stand of the defendants is that the father of the plaintiff managed to obtain signatures of the first defendant by way of malafide practices and that the first defendant never consented for the marriage of his second son Hanumanthappa as he was suffering from juvenile diabetes mellitus coma, cardio respiratory arrest and such other symptoms. The plaintiff was about 14 years of age at the time of death of Hanumanthappa and that she was not fit for marriage. It was asserted that if any document is produced by the plaintiff to show that she was married, it is a concocted one. By way of a separate written statement, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 denied the allegations of the plaintiff. It was pleaded as under:
"12. The plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs. The true facts of the case are that the plaintiff is grand daughter of first defendant and the plaintiff's mother, first defendant and plaintiff colluded with each other and they have filed this suit in order to grab the properties, the plaintiff is not at all wife of the said late Hanumanthappa. Even as on the date of the death of said Hanumanthappa, the said plaintiff was aged about 14 years. Even the said Hanumanthappa was also suffering from Juvenile Diabetes Mellitus coma, Cardio respiratory arrest and such other symptoms. Even he was not in position to marry or to give consent for marriage since 6 years and never marriage of the plaintiff with late Hanumanthappa had been taken place."
6. The parties went to trial with one of the issues being whether the plaintiff is wife of late Hanumanthappa. To prove the said issue, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. PW-2 is the father of the plaintiff whereas PW-3 to PW-5 are the witnesses of an agreement to marriage dated 7th March, 1986, who were examined to prove plaintiff's marriage with Hanumanthappa. PW-6 was examined to prove the age of the deceased Hanumanthappa. PW-7 to PW-9 are the daughters of deceased defendant No. 1. As per the birth certificate (Ex.P/30), the date of birth of Hanumanthappa is 20th June, 1966, that makes him 19 years 9 months at the time of his marriage. On the other hand, the plaintiff in her statement stated her age as 15 years at the time of marriage. However, the defendants have produced Ex.D/3, Register of Admission of the School,
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
