Back
R.SUBRAMANIAN
S. Ranjit Priya – Appellant
Versus
Suseela – Respondent
Key Points:- The judgment holds that the marriage between Sundararaju and the 1st defendant is invalid given Sundararaju’s Christian status, affecting legitimacy of children [21001314400030][21001314400031].- It states that illegitimate children cannot be treated as legitimate under Indian Divorce Act or Indian Succession Act, absent a valid marriage under Christian law [21001314400029][21001314400028].- It concludes succession rights depend on the religion professed by the deceased, not the heirs, and declines extending Hindu Succession Act provisions to illegitimate children in this Christian-formed context [21001314400030][21001314400026].- The appellate court’s conclusions that 2nd and 3rd defendants are the legal heirs over the plaintiffs are affirmed, with dismissal of the appeal (no costs) [21001314400031].- The plaintiffs’ claim to be legal heirs and to receive death benefits is rejected due to invalid marriage and illegitimacy findings [21001314400004][21001314400009].- The trial and appellate findings that the 2nd defendant married Sundararaju in a Christian ceremony and that the 3rd defendant is a child born of lawful wedlock are weighed against the plaintiffs’ claims [21001314400005][21001314400007].
1. The plaintiffs in OS.No.762 of 2001 are the appellants. The said suit was initiated seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Sundararaju and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from disbursing the death and other benefits accrued to the Estate of Late Sundararaju to the defendants 2 and 3 or any other persons claiming under him.
2. According to the plaintiffs, they are the daughters of late Sundararaju and 1st defendant S.Tamilarasi. They were born on 29.06.1979, 09.07.1981 and 10.02.1989 respectively. They would further claim that the deceased Sundararaju and the 1st defendant got married on 26.06.1978 and they lived as husband and wife. They were treated as husband and wife by the whole world. The deceased Sundararaju had acknowledged the 1st defendant as his widow and the plaintiffs as his children.
3. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the said Sundararaju never disclosed any of his connection with the 2nd defendant who now claims to be his first wife and the 3rd defendant who claims to be son born to the said Sundararaju and the first wife. The plaintiffs would contend that they
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
