Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran, Mumminen Sudheer Kumar, JJ
M. Raman, Dr. Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
M.Raju (Died), D.M.Govindasamy (Died), Kannammal, M.Gopal Gounder (Died), Sarojini, R.Jayabalan, R.Nagarajan, R.Vijayan, Premavathi, Porkodi, S.Priya, S.Ganesan, G.Raja, G.Shanthi, G.Chitra, G.Chandra Kumar, G.Kumar, G.Velan, G.Mayilan, G.Kuyilan, G.Sankar, G.Amudhasurabhi, G.Balamurugan, R.Jamuna, R.Vijaya, R.Rajeswari, R.Palanisamy, R.Sundaravalli, R.Gowrishankar, R.Krishnaveni, R.Balasubramaniam, R.Sivakumar – Respondent
A.S.No.996 of 2005
For the Appellants: Mr.N.Manoharan
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Balakrishnan, Mr.N.S.Suganthan
A child born from a second marriage is entitled to ancestral property rights, as long as legitimacy is recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Legitimacy of children from second marriages and rights in ancestral property - The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition, denying their legitimacy and right to property based on two release deeds. On appeal, this Court held that the plaintiffs, as Class-I heirs, are entitled to share in ancestral property, affirming their offensive status due to the purity of cohabitation. The Court, however, acknowledged the defendants' exclusive possession and the validity of release deeds executed years prior, validating their adverse claims. (Paras 10, 18, 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts about the partition suit and historical family context. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. judicial inference regarding legitimacy. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 3. court's rationale on legality of release deeds and plaintiffs' rights. (Para 17 , 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
The appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S.No.129 of 2004, on the file of Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the son of Munusamy Gounder born to his second wife, Kullammal had instituted a suit for partition against the defendants, who are descendants of Munusamy through his first wife, Pappathiammal.
3. Plaint averments in brief:
According to the plaintiffs, their father Munusamy had two wives since the first wife, Pappathiammal, had only daughter, to have a male issue Munusamy Gounder married their mother Kullammal in the year 1928 with the consent of his first wife. The suit properties are ancestral properties devolved upon Munusamy Gounder and were held as joint family properties till his death on 23.11.1975. Since Munusamy Gounder died intestate, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for shares in the properties. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants avoiding amicable settlement and hence, a legal notice calling upon the defendants to effect division was issued on 08.08.2002.
4. The first defendant who is the son of Munusamy born through his first wife, Pappathiammal, alone replied, denying the status of the plaintiff and right to claim partition. To the reply notice dated 13.08.2002, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice on 26.11.2002, placing the true facts. In his reply notice, the 1st defendant has stated that Munusamy Gounder (Senior) executed a release deed in favour of his father K.V.Munusamy Gounder, dated 27.04.1953. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs who are not legitimate child of the deceased Munusamy, is not entitled for any share in the properties. It is further contended that after execution of the release deed in favour of his father on 27.04.1953, Munusamy (Junior) had severed his relationship with the family and status as coparcener. The said contention of the 1st defendant as narrated in the reply notice is false. The plaintiffs are, in fact, in joint possession of the properties along with the defendants and till the demise of Munusamy Gounder (Junior), he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The release deed was brought about to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs pursuant to conspiracy hatched between the defendants and Munusamy Gounder (Senior). The release deed on the face of it reading would clearly prove that it is a concocted document to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.
5. Written Statement in short:
The 1st defendant, Gopal, filed written statement as well as an additional written statement wherein, elaborating his narrative in the reply notice, had contended that the plaintiffs are not legitimate children of the deceased Munusamy and the marriage between Munusamy and the mother of the plaintiffs, Kullammal, in the year 1928 was not at the instance of the first wife, Pappathiammal. Munusamy got separated from his father and the family as early as 27.04.1953 by executing a registered release deed in favour of his father K.V.Munusamy (Senior). Under the release deed, the entire right of Munusamy in the family properties got vested with K.V.Munusamy (Senior). After executing the release deed, Munusamy severed his relationship with the family as well as his status as coparcener. Thereafter, Munusamy who has developed illicit intimacy with Kullammal leading a nucleus family with her unconnected to the defendants. After the death of his father Munusamy (Senior), attempt was made by Munusamy (Junior) to claim share in the immovable properties left by his father Munusamy (Senior). Hence, there was panchayat in the village, wherein the 1st defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his father Junior Munu
