In partition suits, the validity of marriage determines entitlement to property shares; long-term cohabitation presumption is rebuttable, necessitating clear evidence to establish marital status.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5, 7A, 11, and 16 - Appeal regarding partition and share in self-acquired properties - The court upheld the trial finding that the first plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased; denies her claim to share, while granting the second plaintiff 1/4th share as the illegitimate son. The marriage was deemed invalid based on the evidence and dates surrounding the first wife's death. (Paras 1, 9, 5, 25)

(B) Legitimacy of Marriage - The court confirmed the necessity of contemporaneous evidence to substantiate marriage claims and applied that the long-term cohabitation presumption in favor of marriage is rebuttable. (Paras 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought partition of properties claimed as self-acquired by the deceased, challenging the existence of the first plaintiff's marriage based on the defendants' assertion of the prior wife's death certificate. Transgressive family dynamics and tensions were highlighted. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The marriage of the first plaintiff was deemed invalid; the second plaintiff was recognized as entitled to 1/4th share in the self-acquired properties, while all claims by the first plaintiff were rejected. (Paras 6, 34)

Issues: 1) Legality of first plaintiff's marriage, 2) Validity of death certificate, 3) Resulting share rights in property. (Paras 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the need for substantive proof of marriage; failure to provide existing documentation shifted burden to the plaintiffs, confirming the trial court’s decision as well-reasoned and valid. The illegitimate son, however, was still deemed entitled to property rights under specific provisions. (Paras 25-33)

Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree. (Paras 35)

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The unsuccessful first plaintiff has preferred the appeal in A.S.No.501 of 2019 and the unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 have preferred the appeal in A.S.No.157 of 2024. The Suit is filed for a partition, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5th share in the Suit Schedule Property. The Trial Court has decreed the Suit in part. The relief sought by the first plaintiff is dismissed. The second plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

2. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:

2.1. The suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of late A.Selvaraj. The first wife of the deceased Selvaraj was one Manimekalai. The defendants 1 to 3 are the daughter and sons of the deceased Selvaraj born through the said Manimekalai. The defendants 3 to 7 are the tenants of the "A" Schedule Property. After the death of the said Manimekalai, the said Selvaraj married the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the son of Selvaraj, born through the first plaintiff. The marriage of the first plaintiff with the said Selvaraj was performed on 04.07.1988 at the residence of Selvaraj according to Suyamariyathai / Seerthirththa form of marriage as per Section 7 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . One Advocate Mahadevan had participated in the marriage celebration held on 04.07.1988. During the subsistence of the marriage, second plaintiff was born on 30.03.1989, but recorded as 10.03.1989.

2.2. The said late A.Selvaraj was the native of Kurumbapalayam. The first plaintiff is the native of Andhur Village of Varahur Majra Kunnam Taluk, a nearby village. The deceased Selvaraj was a PWD contractor and he purchased the suit schedule properties. The said Selvaraj died on 03.12.2011. In view of usual hatred between the 1st wife's children and 2nd wife's child, the plaintiff settled at Tiruvanaikoil, Trichy. The defendants did not allow the second plaintiff, especially the first defendant's husband, to lit the funeral pyre and ultimately, relatives and police intervened and the second plaintiff lit the funeral pyre of moral remains of his father.

2.3. The plaintiffs demanded partition of the suit schedule properties through several panchayats and mediations, but did not fructify. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3, each entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs together entitled to 2/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs also sent a notice dated 11.07.2012 to the defendants demanding partition, but the defendants 1 to 3 sent a reply dated 21.07.2012, denying the status of the plaintiffs.

3. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:

The defendants denied the status of the first plaintiff as the legally wedded wife and questioned the legitimacy of the second plaintiff, by relying upon the Death Certificate dated 08.01.2014 showing that their mother Manimekalai died on 23.08.1997 and the marriage of the first plaintiff with the Selvaraj is invalid under Hindu Law.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs have the right to enjoy and for a preliminary decree for 2/5th share in the suit schedule properties ?

(ii) Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties ?

(iii) Whether the suit schedule properties were undervalued and deficit court fee has been paid?

(iv) To what other reliefs the plaintiff's are entitled?

5. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and her son / second plaintiff was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined herself as DW1, the second defendant examined himself as DW2 and one Kumaraguru was examined as DW3 and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked.

6. Findings of the Trial Court:

(i) The marriage of the first plaintiff is inva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64001

In partition suits, the validity of marriage determines entitlement to property shares; long-term cohabitation presumption is rebuttable, necessitating clear evidence to establish marital status.

Cases Referred (5)