Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
Kumari Baghyavathi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lakshmikanthammal (Deceased) and Others, Defendants - Respondents
C.S.No.178 of 1981
Decided On : 23 April 1992
HINDU LAW - MARRIAGE - PRESUMPTION - MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OF DIFFERENT CASTES - VALIDITY - PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE - WHEN ARISES - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, SECTION 16(1) - AMENDMENT BY ACT LXVIII OF 1976 - EFFECT - ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN - RIGHT TO SHARE IN FATHER'S PROPERTY - EXTENT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the daughter of one Srinivasalu Naidu through his second wife Rajalakshmi Ammal, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her one-fourth share in the properties left by her father. The contesting defendant, Sarojini, denied the marital status of Rajalakshmi Ammal and the paternity of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant, Gajalakshmi, who was also claimed to be the daughter of Srinivasalu Naidu through Rajalakshmi Ammal. The plaintiff and the second defendant produced various documents and evidence to establish the marriage between Srinivasalu Naidu and Rajalakshmi Ammal, including birth certificates, school records, photographs, and witness testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant were the daughters of Srinivasalu Naidu through his second wife Rajalakshmi Ammal. The court held that the presumption of marriage arose from the fact that Srinivasalu Naidu and Rajalakshmi Ammal had lived together for a long period of time and had been recognized as husband and wife by a number of persons. The court also held that the presumption of marriage was strengthened by the fact that Srinivasalu Naidu had celebrated the marriage of the fourth defendant Gajalakshmi and had printed the invitation card in the name of himself and his wife. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant had been well received by the family in functions and had been allowed to have photographs with the third defendant's daughter.
Issues: 1. Whether the 2nd defendant Rajalakshmi Ammal is the legally wedded 2nd wife of Srinivasalu Naidu? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Srinivasalu Naidu through the 2nd defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant has any right in the properties left by Srinivasalu Naidu? 4. Whether the 2nd defendant has to be allotted any share in the suit items? 5. Whether the 4th defendant is the daughter of Srinivasalu Naidu through the 2nd defendant? 6. Whether Item 1 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st defendant? 7. Whether Item 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule partnership business did not belong to Srinivasalu Naidu exclusively? and whether Srinivasalu Naidu was only debtor of that Firm? 8. Whether the Motor car described in Item 4 of the plaint 'D' schedule did not belong to Srinivasalu Naidu? 9. To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of marriage arises from the fact that the parties have lived together for a length of time or that they have been recognized as husband and wife by a certain number of persons. The presumption of marriage arising out of long cohabitation and repute is much stronger than the presumption in regard to other facts. Where a man and woman have cohabited for such a length of time and in such circumstances as to have acquired the reputation of being man and wife, a lawful marriage between them will generally be presumed, though there may be no positive evidence of any marriage having taken place and the presumption can be rebutted only by strong and weighty evidence to the contrary.
Final Decision: The court passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in respect of 1/4 share in item 2 of plaint 'A' Schedule Ambattur house and 1/8 share in respect of item 1 of plaint 'B' Schedule partnership business in favor of the plaintiff and in respect of (sic) 1/8 share in item 2 of plaint 'A' Schedule and 1/16 share in item 1 of plaint 'B' Schedule in favor of the second defendant. In other respects, the suit was dismissed. In the circumstances, parties were to bear their own costs.
The Judgment was delivered by :
Suit for partition and separate possession.
2. The plaint averments are as follows :-
The 1st defendant Smt. Lakshmikanthammal and 2nd defendant Smt. Rajalakshmi Ammal are senior and junior widows of one late Srinivasalu Naidu who died in-testate on 4-5-1980. The 3rd defendant Smt. Sarojini is the daughter of the 1st defendant Smt. Lakshmikanthammal, while 4th defendant Gajalakshmi is the eldest daughter of 2nd defendant Smt. Rajalakshmi Ammal. Plaintiff Baghyavathi is her youngest daughter. Srinivasalu Naidu married the second defendant Smt. Rajalakshmi Ammal as his second wife in the year 1948. While items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule are the self acquired properties of Srinivasalu Naidu, the shipping and clearing agent business carried on by him as sole proprietor is described as Item 4 in the plaint schedule. The parties herein alone are legal heirs of deceased Srinivasalu Naidu. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the said properties. Hence the suit for partition and separate possession of her one fourth share in the said properties. Hence the suit for partition and separate possession of her one fourth share in the plaint properties and for directing the defendants to pay her marriage expenses and for directing the defendants 1 and 2 to render a true and proper account of the mesne profits and pay her due share therein.
3. The 2nd defendant has paid court fees and demanded for partition and separate possession of her share in the properties. She pleads that her marriage with late Srinivasalu Naidu was solemnised at Sri Parthasarathyswamy temple, Triplicane, Madras according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1948. Thereafter both of them were living together as husband and wife at Old No. 21, Vinayaga Maistry Street, G.T. Madras. The plaintiff was born to her on 10-5-1951 at the Rainey Hospital, Tondiarpet, Madras during their lawful wedlock. She and late Srinivasalu Naidu lived together at No. 12 Sambier street, George Town from 1949 to 1958. Thereafter they shifted their residence to No. 1/55, Mullah Sahib Street, George Town. They were living at No. 318 Mint street, Madras from the year 1960 to 1976. Her husband Srinivasalu Naidu was very much attached to her and her daughter the plaintiff herein.
4. The 4th defendant practically admits the allegations in the plaint and sails with the plaintiff. She claims that she is the eldest daughter of late Srinivasulu Naidu through his second wife Smt. Rajalakshmi Ammal. And she is entitled to an one fourth share in the suit properties after the death of her father.
5. The 3rd defendant who is the contesting defendant denies in her written statement and additional written statement that either the plaintiff and the 4th defendant are the daughters nor the 2nd defendant is the wife of M. Srinivasalu Naidu. She and her mother the 1st defendant are the only heirs to the estate of M. Srinivasulu Naidu. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 4 belong to Devadasy community who have peculiar customs of their own. M. Srinivasalu Naidu had nothing to do with these three people throughout their life and he lived only with the 1st defendant in the latterandapos;s house and died there. M. Srinivasulu Naidu had not married any one else in his lifetime except the first defendant. In any event, Item No. 1 of the suit property absolutely belongs to the 1st defendant. Srinivasulu Naidu owned Item No. 2 alone. The business of shipping agency described as Item No. 3 does not belong to M. Srinivasulu Naidu exclusively. The said business was carried on by him in partnership with this defendant. The partnership was automatically dissolved on the demise of Srinivasulu Naidu on 4-5-1980. At the time of his death Srinivasulu Naidu owed Rs. 89, 000/- to the partnership.
6. The 1st defendant by a memo has adopted the written statement of the 3rd defendant. After the death of 1st defendant the 3rd defendant has been recorded as her legal representative.
7. On
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
