Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S.Kinagi, J.
Sannapalamma – Appellant
Versus
S. Obaiah – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 975 of 2007 (Inj), Regular Second Appeal Nos. 974 of 2007, 976 of 2007, 977 of 2007
Decided On : 13-10-2023
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - Matrimonial Legitimacy and Property Rights - Sections 5, 11, 16 - The court interpreted Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, establishing that a marriage is void if one party has a living spouse at the time of marriage. Section 16 clarifies the legitimacy of children born from void marriages, stating they have no rights to property other than that of their parents. This legal framework influenced the court's decision, determining that the plaintiffs, born from a void marriage, could not claim a share in the ancestral property during the lifetime of their father. The court upheld the First Appellate Court's judgment, confirming the plaintiffs' lack of entitlement to the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties, claiming they were the legitimate children of defendant No.1, who had married their mother and another woman simultaneously. The defendants contended that the marriage of the plaintiffs' mother was void, as defendant No.1 had a living spouse at the time of their marriage, and thus the plaintiffs had no rights to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marriage of the plaintiffs' mother was void under Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property during the lifetime of their father. The court upheld the First Appellate Court's findings, confirming that the plaintiffs were born from a void marriage and had no rights to the property.
Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are legitimate children of defendant No.1? 2) Whether the marriage of the plaintiffs' mother is void? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the ancestral property?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that children born from a void marriage do not have rights to property other than that of their parents, as per Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The legitimacy conferred by Section 16 does not extend to property rights in ancestral property during the lifetime of the father.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were confirmed, denying the plaintiffs' claims to the property.
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 defendant Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are defendant Nos.3 to 6. In RSA No.974/2007 the appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. In RSA No.976/2007 the appellants are the defendant Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.3 to 6. In RSA No.977/2007 the appellants are the defendant Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.3 to 6 before the trial Court. All these appeals are arising out of the same set of facts. Hence these appeals are considered together and common judgment is passed.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of RSA No.974/2007 are as under:
In O.S.No.323/1994, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 married Smt. Dodda palamma and Smt. Sannapalamma in the same muhurtha. Smt. Doddapalamma and Smt. Sanna palamma are sisters. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of defendant No.1 through Smt. Sannapalamma. Smt. Doddapalamma had no issues. The plaintiffs are minors and they are represented by their mother Smt. Sannapalamma. The original propositor was one Poojari Doddamadaiah and he had two sons. The said Poojari Doddamadaiah is no more. He died leaving behind his wife and children. The plaintiff, defendant No.1, Smt. Dodda palamma and Smt. Sannapalamma are all the members of Hindu joint family. Defendant No.1 developed illicit intimacy with defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No.2. On the advise of defendant Nos.2 to 4, defendant No.1 neglected the plaintiffs and started spending money and neglected the cultivation of land. Smt. Doddapalamma and Smt. Sannapalamma resisted his illegal intimacy. Defendant No.1 did not heed to the request. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and his wives. The suit schedule properties i.e., land bearing Sy.No.12/1 measuring 20 acres 3 guntas and Sy.No.12/2 measuring 23 acres 9 guntas situated at Mallurahalli Village was acquired by defendant No.1 under a registered partition deed dtd. 18/7/1988 effected between defendant No.1 and his brother's wife and sons and after partition, the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and his wives are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 without there being any legal necessity, illegally and nominally, executed three registered sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 on 25/4/1989, with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs over the schedule properties. The sale is not for legal necessity and executed without consideration. The plaintiffs contended that the said sale deeds are not binding on them, as defenda
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.
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.
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....
Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
A valid Hindu marriage requires performance of customary rites and ceremonies as mandated by statute; mere cohabitation is insufficient. Notwithstanding the validity of the marriage, children of 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
