Back
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Vijayakumari – Appellant
Versus
Devabalan – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that the marriage between fourth defendant (a Christian) and Mariya Augustine (a Christian) is not a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (!) . The marriage can only be solemnised between two Hindus under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (!) . - The court held that children born out of a marriage between a Hindu father and a non-Hindu mother are to be fixed by the religion of the mother, and therefore the children in this case are Christians (!) (!) . - The court held that since the children are Christians, the concept of a coparcenary joint family is not applicable, and the fourth defendant became the absolute owner of the property upon Adichan Nadar's death, making the gift deed valid (!) . - The court noted that, even if the property were joint family property, the manager of a Hindu family can make a gift of a reasonable portion to a daughter, and the quantitative limits depend on the facts of each case (!) . - The court found that the fourth defendant did not exceed the permissible limits in executing the gift deed to his daughter, considering similar gifts made to another daughter (!) .
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs.
2. Plaintiffs case can be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiffs, first defendant and Santhakumari are the children of fourth defendant. Plaint schedule property was obtained by Adichan Nadar, father of the fourth defendant, under partition deed of the year 1079. They are Hindu Nadars governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The property obtained by Adichan Nadar devolved on the fourth defendant and he was in possession of the same as Manager of the joint family. Plaintiffs obtained right over the properties of the joint family by their birth. On 13.3.1975 fourth defendant representing himself as the sole owner of the property, executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, properties are co-parcenary properties and hence fourth defendant is not competent to execute any document. Consequently first defendant did not get possession of the property. Later fourth defendant cancelled the gift deed and plaintiffs are
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided references do not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or similar terms that would suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these cases. Therefore, based on the available information, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed]
Vijayakumari and another Vs. K. ... K.Devabalan and others reported in AIR 2003 Ker 363.
M. Vijayakumari and another Vs. Siyath reported in (2008) 4 KLT 1002.
These cases are likely considered good law as they are cited as references without any indication of negative treatment or overrule.
[Uncertain treatment]
The phrase "and M.Vijayakumari and another Vs." appears incomplete and does not specify how the case was treated in subsequent rulings. Without explicit language indicating treatment, the judicial status remains ambiguous.
The references include multiple citations, but no explicit treatment pattern (such as "followed" or "distinguished") is provided. Therefore, their current legal standing cannot be conclusively determined from the given list.
The case listing "and M.Vijayakumari and another Vs." is incomplete and does not specify treatment, making it uncertain whether it is overruled or otherwise negatively treated.
The references provided do not specify whether these cases have been followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled, leaving their treatment ambiguous.
**Source :** S. Ranjit Priya VS Suseela - Madras Kamla Devi VS Bachulal Gupta - Supreme Court
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
