IMPORTANT POINT
Children born out of a void marriage are entitled to inherit from their father under Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and can seek revocation of a succession certificate if it was obtained without disclosing their existence.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree in CMA No. 26 of 2017, dated 09.10.2017 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC, Kumbakonam confirming the judgment and Decree in SOP.No. 84 of 2013 dated 04.07.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

1. The petitioners herein claiming to be the legal heirs of one deceased Radhakrishnan, ie., first petitioner being wife and petitioners 2 and 3 claiming to be the children filed S.O.P.N.84 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbaknoam under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the respondents herein, who are the first wife and daughter of the deceased late Radhakrishnan, seeking to revoke the certificate of succession granted in S.O.P.No. 57 of 2012 dated 28.06.2012.

2. The said S.O.P.No. 57 of 2012 was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against respondent No. 2 for grant of succession in respect of the terminal benefits of late Radhakrishnan. The said SOP was not contested by the respondent No. 2 herein and accordingly, the same was ordered duly granting succession in favour of the respondents herein, declaring them as the persons entitled to equally for the terminal benefits of late Radhakrishnan. The first petitioner herein claiming to be the second wife and petitioners 2 and 3 claiming to be the daughters of late Radhakrishnan through second wife filed S.O.P.No. 84 of 2013 under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to revoke the succession certificate granted in favour of the respondents herein in S.O.P.No. 57 of 2012.

3. This Court after having heard the counsel on either side on 13.02.2024 prima facie opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue is squarely covered by a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa and another Vs. Mallikarjun and others, (2023) 10 SCC 1 and posted the matter for orders. On 19.02.20224, when the matter was listed for orders, there was no representation for the respondents. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed again on 20.02.2024.

4. Today when the matter is listed under the caption for orders also there is no representation for the respondents either in the pre-lunch session or in the post lunch session. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no other option, except to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders.

5. As already noted above, the petitioner No. 1 herein is claiming to be the second wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are claiming to be the children of late Radhakrishnan. Whereas admittedly, the respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and second respondent is the daughter of late Radhakrishnan. Though in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in S.O.P.No. 84 of 2013, the marriage of the first petitioner with the deceased late Radhakrishnan was disputed and several allegations were made against the first petitioner herein about her character, so also about the status of the petitioners 2 and 3 being the children of late Radhakrishnan was disputed, it is admitted in the counter that the names of the petitioners herein were entered in the service register of the deceased Radhakrishnan as nominees showing them as wife and children. From the tenor with which the counter affidavit was filed also goes to suggest that the petitioners 2 and 3 herein are the children of late Radhakrishnan. Further the birth certificates of petitioners 2 and 3 herein were also marked as Ex.B5 and Ex.B6, thereby proving their births to late Radhakrishnan and the first petitioner herein. Even during in the course of argument also on 13.02.2024, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not seriously disputed about the status of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein being the children of late Radhakrishnan.

6. Both the Court's below have failed to consider the evidence available