Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J.
Pandurangappa, S/O Patel Rangappa, Since Dead By His Lrs., and ors. - Appellants
Versus
N.B.Dodda Rangappa, S/O Patel Rangappa, Since Dead By His Lrs., and ors. - Respondents
R.F.A.No.1985 of 2006 (Par)
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The Act applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion or a Buddhist, Jaina, or Sikh by religion. It specifies conditions for the solemnization of a marriage between two Hindus and the ceremonies for Hindu marriage. Section 11 of the Act declares marriages solemnized after the commencement of the Act null and void if they contravene certain conditions. Section 12 deals with voidable marriages. Section 16 provides for the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. The Court analyzed these provisions to determine the validity of the marriages and the entitlement of the children to equal shares in the properties.
Fact of the Case:
N.B. Dodda Rangappa filed a suit for partition in respect of agricultural properties against Pandu Rangappa and his half-brothers. Dodda Rangappa claimed that he was the only son of Patel Rangappa and his wife Chikkamma, and that his half-brothers were joint in possession of the properties. He sought declaration of his entitlement to half a share in the properties and partition. The Trial Court held that Dodda Rangappa had proved his entitlement to half a share and decreed the suit. Defendants appealed, arguing that the marriages of Patel Rangappa were valid and the children were entitled to equal shares in the properties. The Court held that since both marriages occurred before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force, they were valid and the children were entitled to equal shares. The Court partially allowed the appeal and held that Dodda Rangappa and his half-brothers were each entitled to 1/6th share in the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and concluded that the marriages of Patel Rangappa were valid as they occurred before the Act came into force. The Court also considered the concept of void and voidable marriages under the Act and held that the marriages in this case were not void or voidable. The Court further examined the application of Section 16 of the Act and concluded that it did not apply to the present case. The Court held that all the children of Patel Rangappa, regardless of the mother, were entitled to equal shares in the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that marriages solemnized before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force are valid and the children born out of such marriages are entitled to equal shares in the properties. The Court also held that Section 16 of the Act does not apply to marriages solemnized before the Act came into force.
Result: The Court partially allowed the appeal and held that Dodda Rangappa and his half-brothers were each entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties.
JUDGMENT :
1. N.B. Dodda Rangappa filed a suit for partition in respect of the thirteen agricultural properties and one tractor-trailer against Pandu Rangappa and his other three half-brothers and one Meenakshamma wife of Thimmanna.
2. The parties shall be referred to by their names instead of their ranking for the sake of convenience.
Brief facts:
3. It is the case of Dodda Rangappa that he was the only son of Patel Rangappa and his wife—Chikkamma. He stated that his father Patel Rangappa, without the knowledge and consent of Chikkamma, had married another lady called Sannamma, through whom, Patel Rangappa had four children namely defendants 1 to 4. He stated that this marriage was void and after the death of his mother—Chikkamma, his half-brothers were joint in possession of the suit schedule properties and Sanna Rangappa—the last son of Patel Rangappa through Sannamma was managing the entire affairs of the family. He stated that initially defendant No.1/Pandu Rangappa was managing the properties of the family, but subsequently, he was addicted to bad habits and this resulted in Dodda Rangappa demanding a share.
4. He stated that his demand was however refused and despite many attempts in that regard, there was no partition. He stated that when he verified the revenue records in order to file a suit, he became aware that, all the revenue records pertaining to item Nos.1 to 13 had been transferred in favour of Sanna Rangappa and the said entries were without any basis. He, therefore, sought for declaration that he was entitled to half a share in the suit properties and also sought for partition and separate possession of this half share.
5. Pandu Rangappa and his brothers entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. They stated that item Nos.12 and 13 were purchased by Kuri Chikkappa in the name of their father—Patel Rangappa about fifty years ago and Patel Rangappa was only a nominal owner and they did not belong to their family. He also set up a plea that Dodda Rangappa’s father and his brothers had partitioned the properties under the registered partition deed and even in the partition deed, item Nos.12 and 13 had not been included. It was stated that the revenue entries were mutated in the name of Sanna Rangappa on the basis of inheritance, but, item Nos.12 and 13 continued to stand in the name of Patel Rangappa. It was stated that neither N.B.Dodda Rangappa nor his brothers had any right over item Nos.12 and 13.
6. It was also stated that the contention of Dodda Rangappa that he was the child born to Patel Rangappa and Chikkamma was incorrect and the further averment that his father had married another lady called Sannamma was also false. It was stated that Patel Rangappa had married only one lady Sannamma and had not married any other lady called Chikkamma. It was stated that Dodda Rangappa was the first son of Sannamma and defendants 1 to 4 were other sons of Sannamma. It was stated that genealogical tree produced was false and cannot be accepted.
7. A further plea was also taken that on the demand of Dodda Rangappa, the suit schedule properties had been partitioned orally and Dodda Rangappa had already taken his 1/6th share. It was stated that this oral partition had taken place about twenty years ago. It was also stated that in case the Court came to the conclusion that Dodda Rangappa was entitled to any share, he would be entitled to only 1/6th share in all the suit schedule properties, except Item Nos.12 to 14.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed seven issues.
9. Dodda Rangappa examined himself as PW-1 and got two other witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs. He also got fifty documents admitted in evidence and marked them as exhibits.
10. On the other hand, Sanna Rangappa—defendant No.4 was examined as DW-1 and got twelve documents admitted in evidence and marked them as exhibits.
11. The Trial Court, on assessment of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Dodda
Marriages solemnized before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force are valid and the children born out of such marriages are entitled to equal shares in the properties.
Children born from a void marriage have no rights to ancestral property during the lifetime of their parents, as established under Sections 5, 11, and 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a child born out of a void marriage is not entitled to claim partition of the joint family properties during the lifetime of the parent but ma....
Children born of void marriages under Hindu law cannot claim rights to ancestral property during the father's lifetime, preventing partition claims until after the father's death.
(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....
Children born to a void marriage are entitled to property shares under the Hindu Marriage Act, despite the marriage's invalidity.
Children from void marriages cannot inherit ancestral property; their rights are confined to their parent's property, consistent with Hindu Succession Act amendments.
Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.
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....
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
