Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
S. Ranjit Priya & Others - Appellants
Versus
Suseela & Others - Respondents
S.A. No. 381 of 2008
Decided On : 02-11-2018
Hindu Marriage Act - Section 16 - Hindu Succession Act - Section 16 - Indian Divorce Act - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 125 - Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 – Invalid Marriage - Illegitimate Children – Heirs Entitled To Receive Benefits - According to plaintiffs, they are daughters of late Sundararaju and 1st defendant - They were born on 29.06.1979, 09.07.1981 and 10.02.1989 respectively - They further claim that deceased and the 1st defendant got married and they lived as husband and wife - They were treated as husband and wife by whole world - Deceased had acknowledged 1st defendant as his widow and plaintiffs as his children - It is further contention of plaintiffs that deceased never disclosed any of his connection with 2nd defendant who now claims to be his first wife and 3rd defendant who claims to be son born to the said deceased and first wife - Plaintiffs would contend that they are legitimate daughters of deceased even assuming Court upholds marriage between deceased and 2nd defendant in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act - It is claimed that said deceased died - He had also nominated 1st defendant and plaintiffs as beneficiaries entitled to receive his death benefits - Based on above contentions plaintiffs had filed suit seeking aforesaid reliefs – Held, It is clear that unless there has been a valid marriage as per Christian Law, children born out of a relationship between a man and woman of whom one of them happens to be a Christian cannot be considered to be legitimate children - If they are not legitimate children they will not be entitled to estate of their father - Neither Indian Divorce Act nor Indian Succession Act recognized illegitimate children as legitimate children under any circumstances - Next question that would arise is whether plaintiffs being Hindus would be entitled to benefits of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act - Provisions of Hindu Marriage Act cannot in my considered opinion be used to validate a marriage or legitimise children of a Christian - Admittedly, even according to PW1, deceased lived and died as a Christian - Marriage between him and 2nd defendant is not denied - It is also not in dispute that marriage between deceased and 2nd defendant preceded marriage between 1st defendant and deceased - In light of such an admitted factual position, it has to be concluded that marriage between deceased and 1st defendant is invalid and children born out of said marriage cannot be treated as legitimate children, particularly in view of fact that deceased was a Christian - Applicability of Succession Laws would depend on religion professed by deceased and not heirs - Question of law that is framed is answered against appellant and in favour of respondents – Appeal Dismissed.
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 are legitimate daughters of the said Sundararaju even assuming the Court upholds the marriage between Sundararaju and the 2nd defendant in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is claimed that the said Sundararaju died on 27.08.1999. He had also nominated the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs as the beneficiaries entitled to receive his death benefits. Based on the above contentions the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The 1st defendant remained exparte and the defendants 2 and 3 resisted the suit contending that the suit itself is barred by res judicata, inasmuch as the defendants 2 and 3 have filed a suit in OS.No.34 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur against the 1st and 4th defendants seeking a declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sundararaju and the said suit has been decreed on 15.12.2000 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. In view of the said decree, the plaintiffs cannot now seek to reagitate the very same question once again.
5. It is also further contended by the defendants 2 and 3 that the deceased Sundararaju was a Christian by birth and he died as a Christian. According to the defendants 2 and 3, the said Sundararaju married the 2nd defendant at TELC Church at Tiruppur on 05.04.1973 and the 3rd defendant was born out of the wedlock on 04.09.1974. Contending that the defendants 2 and 3 are alone the legal heirs of the deceased Sundararaju and the plaintiffs are not the children of the deceased Sundararaju the defendants 2 and 3 sough for dismissal of the suit.
6. At trial, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant Suseela was examined as DW1 and one Nagendra Mohan employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as DW2, Exs.B1 to B19 were marked. The trial Court framed relevant issues and found that the deceased Sundararaju had in fact married the 2nd defendant in the year 1973 at the TELC Church, Tiruppur.
7. The learned trial Judge also found that the 3rd defendant is the son of the deceased Sundararaju born out of lawful wedlock. The trial Court however concluded that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are also the legal heirs of the deceased Sundararaju. The reason for such a conclusion is that the deceased Sundararaju had acknowledged the plaintiffs as his daughters. The learned trial Judge also took into account the fact that the deceased Sundararaju and the 2nd defendant had separated immediately after marriage and they did not reunite till his death.
8. On the above findings, the learned trial Judge concluded that the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Sundararaju and his death benefits must be equally distributed amongst them. The trial Court
SupremeToday
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
