Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Srinivas, J.
Palavali Viswanath (Died) ] By Lrs.& Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Palavalli Mallika - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 317 of 2008
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Maintenance - Partition of Properties - DNA Test - [FACT OF THE CASE] The case involved a dispute over past and future maintenance, marriage expenses, and partition of properties between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial court found that the 2nd respondent was the daughter of the deceased 1st defendant and was entitled to maintenance and a share in the joint family properties. The defendants appealed against the decision. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the 2nd respondent was indeed the daughter of the deceased 1st defendant based on DNA test evidence and other supporting documents. The court also held that the 2nd respondent was entitled to maintenance and a share in the joint family properties. [ISSUES] The main issues were whether the 2nd respondent was the daughter of the deceased 1st defendant, the genuineness of certain documents, and the extent of the 2nd respondent's entitlement to the joint family properties. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court relied on the DNA test evidence and other supporting documents to establish the paternity of the 2nd respondent. The court also analyzed the genuineness of the documents and determined the extent of the 2nd respondent's entitlement to the joint family properties. [FINAL DECISION] The court partly allowed the appeal by passing a preliminary decree of partition for the joint family properties, granting the 2nd respondent an equal share in the notionally partitioned share of the deceased 1st defendant. The rest of the trial court's decision regarding maintenance and other claims was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
V. Srinivas, J. - This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.21 of 2005 dated 30.01.2008 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.
2. The defendant Nos.2 to 4, before the trial Court, are the appellants. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit itself the 1st defendant Viswanath died.
3. The respondents instituted the suit against the appellants and deceased Viswanath for past maintenance from March, 2001 to March, 2004, future maintenance for one year at Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively; directing them to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards marriage expenses; partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds; allot one such share to the 2nd respondent; creation of charge over the said property with respect to the claim of the maintenance of the respondents and for costs.
4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.
5. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows:
(i) The marriage between the 1st respondent and Palavali Viswanath/1st defendant took place about 25 years prior to the filing of the suit at Lord Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala of Chittor District by converting her religion from Muslim to Hindu. Due to wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born to them on 23.07.1984 and they lead marital life happily for about five years.
(ii) Thereafter, the said Viswanath started to harass her on account of his vices and due to her failure to give birth to a male child. About three years prior to the suit, the said Viswanath left the house of respondents and started to reside at his native place Kalikiri with another lady.
(iii) When the respondents questioned him, he along his concubine beat them, necked out from the house and also threatened them to kill, if they claim any status in future. As the said Viswanath is trying to sell away the properties, the respondents got issued a legal notice dated 27.03.2004. Hence, the suit.
6. The defendant No.1 denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:
(i) The respondents have purposefully and wrongly mentioned their surname as 'Palavali' so as to lay false claim against him and the 1st respondent belonging to Muslim religion has got the surname of 'Shaik' and she married her neighbor by name Babu, S/o.V.Basappa on 12.06.1981. Due to such wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born to them and the said marriage was duly registered by the Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle under Special Marriage Act. He never married the 1st respondent and she is not his legally wedded wife and 2nd respondent was not born to him.
(ii) He married one Suguna in the year, 1975 and due to their wedlock, one male child and one female child by name Sunil Reddy and Radhika were born. He is not the owner of item Nos.1 to 5 of plaint 'A' schedule nor getting any income nor owned any movables as detailed in plaint 'B' schedule and he incurred debts of Rs.5,00,000/- from various persons for the family expenses.
(iii) The 2nd respondent at the instigation of the 1st respondent filed a false criminal complaint before II Town Police Station, Madanapalle for the offence under Section 307 of IPC in Cr.No.151 of 2005 against him stating that the 1st respondent has got Ac.04.00 cents of agricultural land and one house from her husband Babu, who died about two years prior to filing of his written statement and in addition having another house in Jandla village. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. As stated supra, during the pendency of the suit itself, the said Viswanath/1st defendant died and the appellant Nos.1 to 3 were impleaded as wife and children of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of paternity through DNA testing and the entitlement of a child to maintenance and a share in joint family properties based on th....
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Children born to a void marriage are entitled to property shares under the Hindu Marriage Act, despite the marriage's invalidity.
(1) Partition – In a suit for partition and shares are dependent upon nature of status and time at which t partition is decreed – Shares fluctuate not only with happening of events in family but also....
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act establishes that daughters are coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property, and oral partitions are not sufficient without formal docume....
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
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
