Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Amirthammal & Others - Appellant
Versus
Krishnamoorthy & Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 1753 of 2002
Decided On : 25-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Santhanaraman, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R5, V. Raghavachari, R6, T. Poornam, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of illegitimate children to succeed ancestral property and the applicability of Hindu Law and French Law depend on the nature of the properties in dispute and the establishment of eligibility for the applicability of French Law. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of seeking to set aside voidable documents to challenge their validity.

Headnote:
Illegitimate Children - Property Rights - 2nd Appeal - [Illegitimate Children] - [Property Rights] - [Hindu Law, Indian Succession Act, 1963] - The court discussed the entitlement of illegitimate children to succeed ancestral property and the applicability of Hindu Law and French Law in Union Territory at Pondicherry. The court held that the properties in dispute were not ancestral but absolute properties of the deceased, and therefore, the question of succession by illegitimate children did not arise. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not pleaded or established their eligibility for applicability of French Law, and therefore, French Law could not be assumed to govern the case. The court upheld the settlement deed executed by the deceased in favor of the defendant, as the plaintiffs had not sought to set it aside, and confirmed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership and recovery of possession of certain properties claimed to be ancestral. The defendants, legal representatives of the deceased, contested the claim, asserting that the deceased had settled some properties in favor of the 1st defendant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the properties in dispute were not ancestral but absolute properties of the deceased. It also held that the plaintiffs had not pleaded or established their eligibility for applicability of French Law, and therefore, French Law could not be assumed to govern the case. The court upheld the settlement deed executed by the deceased in favor of the defendant, as the plaintiffs had not sought to set it aside.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of illegitimate children to succeed ancestral property, the applicability of Hindu Law and French Law in Union Territory at Pondicherry, and the validity of the settlement deed executed by the deceased in favor of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the properties in dispute were not ancestral but absolute properties of the deceased, and therefore, the question of succession by illegitimate children did not arise. The court also emphasized that the plaintiffs had not pleaded or established their eligibility for applicability of French Law, and therefore, French Law could not be assumed to govern the case. Additionally, the court upheld the settlement deed executed by the deceased in favor of the defendant, as the plaintiffs had not sought to set it aside.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were upheld and confirmed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.70 of 2000 dated 06.09.2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1382 of 1996 dated 31.03.1999 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.)

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1382 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry are the appellants herein.

2. They had filed the aforesaid suit originally against one defendant, Neela Ammal seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owner of the suit properties and to direct the defendant to handover the same and for costs of the suit.

3. Pending the suit, the sole defendant, Neela Ammal died and her legal representatives were brought on record as 2nd to 6th defendants.

4. By judgment dated 31.03.1999, the suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession within a period of three months.

5. The 4th, 5th and 6th defendants then filed A.S.No.70 of 2000 before the Principal District Court, Puducherry. By judgment dated 06.09.2001, the appeal suit was allowed and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1382 of 1996 was set aside and partly decreed by granting a declaration that the plaintiffs therein were declared to be the owners of half share of the suit properties except those items which had already been alienated by the defendant Neela Ammal. It was also directed that the defendants shall deliver to the plaintiffs 1/2 share in the properties which were still under their possession and not alienated by Neela Ammal forthwith.

6. Questioning that particular judgment, the plaintiffs had filed the present Second Appeal.

7. The defendants have not filed any cross appeal questioning the direction to handover 1/2 share of the properties which were still in their possession and which had not been alienated by the original defendant Neela Ammal.

8. Pending the Second Appeal, the 6th respondent had been impleaded by order dated 24.11.2014 in CMP.No.388 of 2014. Subsequently, the name of the 6th respondent had also been changed by order dated 22.06.2022.

9. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 31.01.2003 on the following two substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the illegitimate children born out of illicit intimacy are entitled to succeed the ancestral property as the illegitimate children born out of void or voidable marriage?

2. Whether prior to 1963 during when the Hindu Law was made applicable to Union Territory at Pondicherry what law was governing the personal rights of local Hindus of Pondicherry (i.e) whether fresh (French) law or local custom and usage?”

10. After hearing the learned counsels on 22.06.2022, the following third substantial question of law had been framed for consideration:

“3. Whether the purchase by the 6th respondent, is legally valid, void or voidable in view of the fact that the purchase was pending the Second Appeal, without obtaining leave of this Court and when the right of the vendor himself has been put in issue in the Second Appeal?”

11. However, during arguments, the learned counsel stated that only the second substantial question of law need be examined by this Court. O.S.No.1382 of 1996 (II Additional District Munsif Court Puducherry):-

12. The three plaintiffs namely, Amirthambal, Visalatchi and Rajambal are the daughters of Vadivel Gounder. It was stated that the suit properties originally belonged to their grand parents Kulandai Gounder and Solaiammal. A Notarial partition – cum – donation deed was executed on 02.01.1947 by the original owner in favour of their son Vadivel Gounder. Vadivel Gounder married one Lakshmi Ammal. The plaintiffs are their children. It was claimed that the properties mentioned in the schedule were in possession and enjoyment of Vadivel Gounder till his death on 28.05.1986. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant against whom they first instituted th