Back
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Sannapalamma – Appellant
Versus
S. Obaiah – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Children born from a marriage that is void under the Hindu Marriage Act do not have rights to ancestral property during the lifetime of their parents, as established under Sections 5, 11, and 16 of the Act (!) (!) (!) .
The marriage of the plaintiffs' mother with the defendant was found to be void because the marriage was performed while the defendant had a living spouse, violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, children born from this marriage are not entitled to rights in the ancestral property during the lifetime of the father (!) (!) (!) .
The legal framework clarifies that children born from void marriages are considered legitimate but only have rights to the property of their parents, not to ancestral or other relations' property, during the lifetime of the parent (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the legitimacy conferred by law does not extend to property rights in ancestral property during the lifetime of the father if the children are born from a void marriage (!) .
The court's findings confirmed that the plaintiffs, being born out of a void marriage, have no rights to claim a share in the ancestral property during the lifetime of their father (!) .
The court highlighted that the law has been amended to remove the stigma of illegitimacy, but children born from void marriages still cannot claim rights in the property of persons other than their parents during the parent's lifetime (!) .
The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgments that deny the plaintiffs' claims to the property, confirming that the plaintiffs' rights are limited to their parent's property and only after the death of the parent (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the rights of children born from void marriages are confined to the property of their parents and do not extend to ancestral or other family properties during the lifetime of the parent (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.
JUDGMENT
1. RSA No.975/2007 is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 6/2/2007, passed in R.A.No.198/2002 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Jn.) Challakere and the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2000, passed in O.S.No.1956/1994 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Challakere; RSA No. 974/2007 is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 6/2/2007, passed in R.A.No.190/2002 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Jn.) Challakere and the judgment and decree dtd. 29/7/2000, passed in O.S.No.323/1994 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Challakere; RSA No. 976/2007 is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 6/2/2007, passed in R.A.No.199/2002 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Jn.) Challakere and the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2000, passed in O.S.No.1957/1994 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Challakere; and RSA No. 977/2007 is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 6/2/2007, passed in R.A.No.200/2002 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Jn.) Challakere and the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2000, passed in O.S.No.1955/1994 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Challakere.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
In RSA No.975/2007 the appellants are the d
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
