Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4417
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
D. Nagamani & Another
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore & Others
S.A.No.1401 of 2002 & C.M.P.No.12193 of 2003
Decided on: 26-10-2009
For the Appellants:K. Kalyana Sundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, & R2, R. Revathi, R4, B.T. Seshadri, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the prescribed procedures for marriage registration and highlights the legal provisions governing the legitimacy of children in void and voidable marriages.
Headnote:
Legal Heirs - Marriage Dispute - Madras (Hindu Marriage Registration) Rules, 1967 - Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the legal heirs of the deceased Damodharan. The first plaintiff claimed to be the legally wedded wife and the second appellant as their son, while the fourth defendant claimed to be the legally wedded wife with two children. The lower courts found in favor of the fourth defendant, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the first appellant was not the legally wedded wife of Damodharan and both appellants were not entitled to his estate. The Court also held that there was no evidence of long cohabitation to presume a lawful marriage between the first appellant and Damodharan.
Issues: Dispute over the legal heirs of Damodharan, specifically regarding the validity of the marriage between the first appellant and Damodharan.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Madras (Hindu Marriage Registration) Rules, 1967, which provide procedures for marriage registration and the Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower courts' findings that the first appellant was not the legally wedded wife of Damodharan and the second appellant was not entitled to inherit his estate.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.91 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, dated 26.04.2002, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.362 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, dated 30.09.1999.
2. The following are the allegations in the plaint succinctly stated:
1. The first plaintiff and her husband Natarajan @ Damodharan loved each other from the year 1972. Even before solemnization of marriage, they lived as husband and wife. Hence, she became pregnant and delivered a male child on 10.06.1973, who is the second appellant. Subsequently, on 02.02.1975, in her parents house at Pethanaickanur, they got married. Both of them were living together in several places in and around Pollachi, till the said Damodharan was unfortunately murdered on 11.03.1992. Prior to his death, he registered the marriage with the Sub-Registrar Office, Anamalai, on 10.02.1989. He deposited totally Rs.75,000/-with the third defendant in the fixed deposit. He worked as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in Government School, Kalathur Village, at the time of his death. The death cum gratuity and family benefit funds payable on the death of Damodharan are available with the first and second defendants. He executed a deed of undertaking on 17.03.1988, by means of which, he bequeathed his whole estate in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to his estate as legal heirs.
2.(ii) The plaintiffs applied for the payment to the defendants, but the second defendant by his letter dated 27.03.1992, refused to pay the amount by stating that one Santhamani, the fourth defendant herein, has also made a claim for the amount alleging that she is also wife of Damodharan. The second defendant has asked the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant to prove their heirship through Court of law. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Damodharan.
3. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, the allegations are as follows:
1. It is incorrect to state that Damodharan and the first plaintiff lived together and the second plaintiff was born to them. The first plaintiff was married to a different person by name Natarajan and the second plaintiff was born through him. Damodharan did not have any other name except Damodharan. The plaintiffs have no communication at all with him. They never lived together and the alleged marriage dated 02.02.1975 is an utter false. It is denied that the marriage was registered on 10.02.1989 in Anamalai. The fourth defendant is the legally wedded wife of Damodharan and their marriage took place on 10.04.1978, at Palani as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of wedlock, she had got two issues. They were born on 23.09.1979 and 16.02.1981 respectively. The alleged deed of undertaking dated 17.03.1988 is not true. It is nothing but a forged document. Damodharan was working as a School Teacher and he was transferred from place to place and ultimately, he was murdered. The plaintiffs might have closely watched the movements of Damodharan and have come with a false claim. They are not legal heirs of the said Damodharan and the first plaintiff, is not his legally wedded wife. The suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and there is no cause of action and the same may be dismissed.
4. The learned District Munsif, Pollachi, after analysing the evidence on record dismissed the suit. The appellants carried the matter before the Sub-Court, Pollachi, in A.S.No.91 of 2001 and the same also suffered dismissal, on 26.04.2002. Hence, the second appeal.
5. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial question of law have been framed by this Court:
“Whether the Court below is right in coming to the conclusion that the fourth respondent is legally wedded wife as against the documentary evidence Ex.A.1, which is a public re
