Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.HEMALATHA, J.
E. Sathishkumar, S/o. Elumalai - Appellant
Versus
Thulukkanam, S/o. Govindharasu - Respondent
S.A.No.183 of 2018 and C.M.P. No.4495 of 2021
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R. Agilesh
For the Respondent: Mrs. V. Srimathi
Marriages occurring during the subsistence of another are invalid; thus, inheritance claims based on such marriages are unenforceable under the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act - Section 15 - Property dispute - Plaintiff sought declaration of title and nullification of a settlement deed. The trial court ruling favored the plaintiff; however, the first appellate court reversed, citing lack of evidence for marriage validity and inheritance rights and upheld the defendant's settlement deed. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Inheritance - Validity of marital relationships - The court emphasized that a marriage cannot be recognized when one party is still legally married; hence, the plaintiff's claims to inheritance based on an invalid marriage were dismissed. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The suit pertains to property originally owned by a deceased woman, wherein the plaintiff claims rights through a purported settlement but faces opposition from the deceased's brother, who executed a later settlement deed.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership or valid marriage, affirming that the properties belonged to the deceased and her legal heirs.
Issues: Main issues included the validity of the plaintiff’s claimed marriage and the legality of the settlement deeds executed by the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts upheld the principle that only legally recognized marital relationships confer inheritance rights, determining that the lack of evidence regarding the marriage invalidated the plaintiff's claims.
Result: Second Appeal is dismissed; the judgment of the first appellate court is upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of plaintiff's claim to properties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' assertions against plaintiff's claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendants challenge plaintiff's claims. (Para 6) |
| 4. trial court findings and evidence (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. first appellate court reversed the judgment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court upheld the findings of the first appellate court. (Para 11) |
| 7. arguments presented by parties (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 8. court's reasoning on ownership and legal heirs (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. final judgment and order of dismissal (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.326/2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. He filed the said suit for (i) declaration of his title to the suit properties, (ii) declaration that the settlement deed dated 07.09.2006 is null and void and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit properties as described in the plaint are in survey numbers 262/1 and 262/9 of Nedimozhiyanur Village, Mayilam Taluk, Tindivanam Registration District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.
3.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
3.1. The suit properties originally belonged to one Kannammal. Kannammal is the wife of one Govindasamy Gounder. Govindasamy Gounder died during the year 1977 and after his death Kannammal married one Perumal Gounder. They did not have any issues. Perumal Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3.2. On 14.04.2006 Kannammal died. Elumalai is the only son of Perumal Gounder and his first wife Karupayee Ammal. Perumal Gounder executed a settlement deed (Ex.A4) in favour of his grandson (plaintiff) on 27.04.2006 in respect of the properties belonging to Kannammal (suit properties) and ever since the date of the settlement deed, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In fact, Perumal Gounder was cultivating sugarcane in the suit properties with the consent of Kannammal. The first defendant, who is the brother of Kannammal, was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. However, he executed a settlement deed dated 07.09.2006 (Ex.B2) in favour of the sixth defendant. According to the plaintiff, this settlement deed is null and void. Therefore, he filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration and injunction as stated above.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds:
i. It is false to contend that Perumal Gounder has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past 30 years.
ii. Kannammal was married to Govindasamy Gounder and constructed a house in the suit properties. Govindasamy was employed in Railways and after his death Kannammal was receiving Family Pension till her death.
iii.The plaintiff has not specifically stated in the plaint as to when Perumal Gounder married Kannammal.
iv. On 10.03.2006 Kannammal executed a Will (Ex.B1) in favour of the first defendant. Subsequently, the first defendant executed a settlement deed dated 07.09.2006 (Ex.B2) in favour of the sixth defendant and handed over the possession of the entire suit properties in his favour. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1) "Whether Kannammal married Perumal Gounder as a second husband?
2) Whether Perumal Gounder is entitled to execute a settlement deed?
3) Whether Kannammal had executed a Will dated 10.03.2006 in favour of the first defendant?
4) Whether the settlement deed dated 07.09.2006 executed by the first defendant in favour of the sixth defendant is valid?
5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"
6. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. The first defendant exa
