Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Kothandapani & Others - Appellant
Versus
Devamirtham - Respondent
CMA No. 2812 of 2017 & C.M.P. No. 16073 of 2017
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Rajasekar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1, A.U. Ilango, R2 to R6, No appearance, R7, L. Sriram, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of marriage and recognition of relationships based on long cohabitation, and the burden of proof on the party seeking to deny the validity of the relationship.

Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Grant of Succession Certificate - Section 372 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and the legal principles related to the presumption of marriage and the recognition of relationships based on long cohabitation. The court relied on Section 50 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to examine the evidence and presumption of relationships. The judgment also referenced legal precedents such as Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director, Consolidation and other Supreme Court and High Court judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The first respondent filed a petition claiming entitlement to the fixed deposits made by her late husband, which was contested by the appellants who disputed her marital relationship with the deceased. The court found that there was a long period of cohabitation between the first respondent and the deceased, and based on the evidence, concluded that the first respondent was entitled to the succession certificate.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the first respondent's claim of being the lawfully wedded wife was supported by evidence of long cohabitation and recognition by the deceased, and therefore upheld the grant of the succession certificate to the first respondent.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the first respondent could be recognized as entitled to the succession certificate with respect to the fixed deposits made by the deceased. The court also considered the dispute over the marital relationship and the claims of the appellants as the only surviving legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles related to the presumption of marriage and recognition of relationships based on long cohabitation. It emphasized the burden of proof on the appellants to deny and dispute the claims of the first respondent, and the importance of evidence in establishing the validity of a relationship.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and upheld the order of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, directing the issuance of the succession certificate to the first respondent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore in O.P.No. 2 of 2011 dated 08.06.2017 in so far as the award on this appellant.)

The first to sixth respondents in Succession O.P.No. 2 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, are the appellants herein. They are aggrieved by the grant of succession certificate to the first respondent herein/petitioner in Succession O.P.No. 2 of 2011, with respect to the claims relating to fixed deposits made by Kasinatha Mudaliar in the second to seventh respondents/Banks.

2. The first respondent Devamirtham had filed Succession O.P.No. 2 of 2011 under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act claiming right and entitlement to the fixed deposits made by late Kasinatha Mudaliar and she claimed such entitlement on the ground that she was a lawfully wedded wife of late Kasinatha Mudaliar.

3. This claim has been resisted by the appellants herein, who disputed her marital relationship with Kasinatha Mudaliar. The appellants are brothers, sisters of Kasinatha Mudaliar and their children. 4. By Judgment dated 08.06.2017, the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, had upheld the claim of the first respondent herein and had directed succession certificate to be issued. Questioning that particular Judgment, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

5. A perusal of the records reveal that the first respondent Devamirtham, had earlier filed O.S.No. 382 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Vellore, seeking a declaration that she is the only legal heir of late Kasinatha Mudaliar, who resided in Vettuvanam Village, Vellore and also seeking an order of injunction restraining the first to sixth defendants therein, who were none other than the second to seventh respondents herein/ Banks from disbursing the amounts due under the fixed deposits made by late Kasinatha Mudaliar to the appellants herein, who were the seventh and eleventh defendants in the said suit.

6. The suit did not go to its natural end but its lifetime was cut half way by the first respondent withdrawing it and later taking a conscious decision to file an application seeking succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.

7. In both the suit and in the petition, the first respondent Devamirtham stated that Kasinatha Mudaliar, resident of Vettuvanam Village had originally married Kamalammal. Since there were no children even during the lifetime of Kamalammal, he married her according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 18th day of Avani month, 1961 at Thiruchhanur. However, no children were born to them also. Kamalammal died on 20.12.2000. Kasinatha Mudaliar died on 08.01.2006.

8. It was the specific case of the first respondent that during his lifetime, Kasinatha Mudaliar had invested monies in fixed deposits and though some of the appellants herein were nominees, claiming to be the only surviving Class-I legal heir, she asserted her rights to receive the benefits which had accrued under the said fixed deposits to the detriment of the appellants herein. She claimed that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Kasinatha Mudaliar and that her cohabitation was recognised by all the village elders and also by the appellants herein and that she had performed family functions along with Kasinatha Mudaliar even during the lifetime of Kamalammal. She therefore claimed that she was entitled to the issuance of succession certificate granting her rights to enjoy the amounts which had accrued on maturity of the fixed deposits, which she further claimed had been invested for her benefit by Kasinatha Mudaliar.

9. The appellants herein questioned the status of the first respondent and denied that a marriage ever took place between Kasinatha Mudaliar and the first respondent. They disputed it every version placed by her seeking succession certificate.

10. They claimed th