Back
1985 Supreme(Bom) 248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Parekh N.K., J.
Raghunath Nana Patil.... Appellant
Versus
Nana Rama Patil others.... Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 243 of 1979, decided on 23-9-1985
Advocates appeared :
Smt. S.S. Gokhale for K.J. Abhyankar, for appellant.
A.V. Bandivadekar, for respondents Nos. 2 3.
An illegitimate son, equated to a legitimate child under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to a share in the ancestral property of his father during the lifetime of his father.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 16 - LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN - PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - SHARE OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD IN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - PARTITION DURING LIFETIME OF FATHER.
Fact of the Case:
Raghunath, the appellant, filed a suit for partition of ancestral property in the hands of his father, Nana Rama Patil, respondent No. 1, claiming to be an illegitimate son and entitled to a one-fourth share. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that Raghunath was an illegitimate son and could not claim any interest in the ancestral property.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Raghunath, as an illegitimate son, was equated to a legitimate child under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and was entitled to the same rights in his father's property as a legitimate son. The court rejected the argument that the rights conferred by Section 16 could only come into existence on the death of the parents and not during their lifetime.
Issues: 1. Whether an illegitimate son is entitled to a share in the ancestral property of his father during the lifetime of his father? 2. Whether the share of an illegitimate son in the ancestral property is one-fourth or one-sixth?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, equates an illegitimate child with a legitimate child in terms of property rights, including the right to inherit ancestral property. 2. The rights conferred by Section 16 are not limited to self-acquired property but extend to all property of the parents, including ancestral property. 3. An illegitimate son is entitled to seek partition of the ancestral property during the lifetime of his father.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and declared Raghunath's share to be one-sixth in the property of his father, Nana Rama Patil.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
An illegitimate child who is equated to a legitimate child under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to share in the ancestral property of his father during the father's lifetime [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
-
The legal status of the child's legitimacy is determined by the marriage's validity, and even if the marriage with the child's mother is void or voidable, the child can be considered legitimate for property rights purposes (!) .
-
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, explicitly states that children born from a marriage that is null and void are to be treated as legitimate, and this status grants them rights in the property of their parents, including ancestral property (!) .
-
The rights conferred by Section 16 extend to all property of the parents, not limited to self-acquired property, and include the right to seek partition during the lifetime of the father (!) .
-
The rights of an illegitimate child under Section 16 are not restricted to rights after the death of the parent; they can claim a share during the parent's lifetime, and there is no legal requirement that such claims can only be made posthumously (!) .
-
The claim of an illegitimate child to a share in ancestral property is valid, and the child's entitlement is generally proportional to the other children, often resulting in a one-sixth share if there are other siblings involved (!) .
-
The division of property should be made considering all legal heirs, including illegitimate children, and their respective shares, which may be adjusted based on the number of heirs and the nature of the property (!) .
-
The legal proceedings confirmed that the illegitimate child's claim to property rights during the father's lifetime is valid, and the court set aside lower court orders, declaring the child's share as one-sixth of the ancestral property (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
2. The facts that give rise to this appeal are that one Rama Aba Patil had two sons viz., Nana Rama Patil (respondent No. 1 herein) and Annappa Rama Patil (respondent No. 4 herein). Gojabai (wrongly described in the paper book as Yojabai) respondent No. 3 is the first wife of the said Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1. Shripati respondent No. 2 is the son of the said Nana and Gojabai respondent No. 3. On or about the 23rd April, 1966, the said Nana Rama Patil, respondent No. 1 contracted a second marriage viz. with one Ratnabai. Raghunath (the appellant herein) and one Sonabai and one Anutai are the children of this second marriage. The said Sonabai and Anutai are, however, not parties to these proceedings. The said Rama Aba Patil died on 18th May, 1966, and his death, his properties devolved upon the said Nana Rama Patil (respondent No. 1) and Annapa Rama Patil (respondent No. 4). They divided the said property between them each taking one half of the same. It appears that certain disputes and differences having arisen between Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1 and his second wife Ratnabai, Raghunath the appellant herein through his mother Ratnabai filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1975 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Radhanagari. In this suit, the said Raghunath (the appellant herein) averred that the property of Rama Aba Patil was partitioned between his father i.e. Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1 herein and the said Annappa Rama Patil respondent No. 4 herein. He also contended that the said Rama Patil respondent No. 1 was neglecting his mother Ratnabai and that she had to live separately from the said Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1. In the suit, he also claimed that he the appellant (herein) was a Class 1 heir, and was entitled to claim a partition of the property in the hands of his parent i.e., Nana Rama Patil (respondent No. 1 herein) and he claimed one-fourth share in the property. Shripati (respondent No. 2 herein) and Gojabai (respondent No. 3 herein) filed their written statement, inter alia, contending that Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1 having married Gojabai i.e. respondent No. 3, could never have contracted a second marriage with Ratnabai. That the Raghunath (the appellant) was, therefore, an illegitimate son and he could not claim a partition and/or a right in any property coming to the hands of the said Nana Rama Patil, respondent No. 1, much less, in the ancestral property coming into the hands of Nana Rama Patil, respondent No. 1. That the said Raghunath (the appellant herein) was hence, not entitled to any relief.
3. In this matter, issues came to be framed and the matter was proceeded with. The learned trial Judge, by his judgment and decree dated 27th July, 1977, inter alia, held that since Raghunath, the appellant herein, was an illegitimate son, he could claim no interest to the property that had come to the hands of his father Nana Rama Patil during the life time of his father the said Nana Rama Patil and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the said Raghunath preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 360 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Extra Assistant Judge at Kolhapur. By an order dated 24th November, 1978, the said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this second appeal. The same is contested by the respondents.
4. The question that now arise are that if the marriage of Nana (respondent No. 1) with Ratnabai is void and/or voidable, and Raghunath, the appellant herein is an illegitimate son, does he take an interest in the property that has come to the hands of his father Nana Rama Patil f
