The marriage annulled under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab-initio, but other legal provisions such as the Tamilnadu Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 1989 and Hindu Succession Act 39 of 2005 can impact entitlement to partition.

The plaintiff in O.S.No. 446 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No. 446 of 1996 had been filed by the plaintiff Vedanayaki against her father, brothers and sisters seeking a preliminary decree for division of the suit schedule property into 8 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share and for future mense profits of Rs.1,000/- per month and for costs. By Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.1996, the suit was dismissed.

3. The plaintiff then filed A.S.No. 86 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode. By Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.1998, the appeal was also dismissed.

4. The plaintiff had then filed the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

“(i) Whether the Courts below were right in law in treating the marriage of the appellant/plaintiff annulled by a Decree of nullity under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 as valid under law and proceeded on that footing to negative the relief of partition prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff?;

(ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in not adverting to the principle of law that a marriage annulled under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is void ab-initio as if no marriage had taken place?; and

(iii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the suit properties on the basis of the Tamilnadu Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 1989 (Act 1/90)?”

5. Pending the Appeal, the first respondent/defendant died. His sons and three daughters were already on record as respondents 2 to 7. His two further daughters were then impleaded as respondents 8 and 9.

O.S. No. 446 of 1996 – Principal District Munsif Court, Erode:

6. The plaintiff was the daughter of the first defendant C.V. Narayanaswamy. The 2 to 6th defendants were the other sons and daughters of the defendants. It was claimed in the plaint that the suit property was ancestral property. The first defendant was allotted the property by partition deed dated 29.11.1973. It was claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to an undivided 1/7th share in the suit property. The plaintiff got married on 18.06.1990. She demanded partition on 10.06.1994. By amendment, the plaintiff had impleaded another sister and hence she claimed 1/8th undivided share in the suit property.

7. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it was claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession Tamil Nadu (Amendment Act), 1989. It was stated that the plaintiff had married on 04.02.1985. It was stated that the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 would apply only to daughters, who married after 25.03.1989. It was also stated that a partition had already been recorded on 29.04.1985 in O.S.No. 47 of 1985 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode. It was stated that the marriage on 18.06.1990 was the second marriage of the plaintiff. It was therefore stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for partition and separate possession and consequently, it was stated that the suit should be dismissed.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, framed the following issues for trial :-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree of partition and separate possession?;

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mense profits?; and

(iii) To what other reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?

9. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. The first defendant examined himself as DW-1. The plaintiff marked Ex.A-1, namely, wedding invitation dated 08.06.1990 and Ex.A-2 which was a copy of the partition deed dated 29.11.1973. The defendants marked Exs. B-1 to B-4. Ex.B-1 was the wedding invitation of the first marriage of the plaintiff dated 04.02.1985; Ex.B-2 was the wedding invitation of the second ma