A valid Hindu marriage requires performance of customary rites and ceremonies as mandated by statute; mere cohabitation is insufficient. Notwithstanding the validity of the marriage, children of the deceased are entitled to inherit as legal heirs provided paternity is established by reliable documentary evidence.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1.Both the Appeal suits in A.S. No.1008 of 2005 and A.S. No.1009 of 2005 arise out of the common judgment and preliminary decree dated 21.07.2005 passed by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. I, Chengalpattu, in O.S. No.497 of 2004 and O.S. No.526 of 2004.

2. The plaintiffs instituted, O.S. No.497 of 2004 seeking partition and separate possession of their lawful shares in the suit schedule properties and instituted O.S. No.526 of 2004 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the properties and from dealing with the bank deposits and movables to the prejudice of the plaintiffs’ rights.

3.The plaintiffs pleaded that the first plaintiff Vasantha was the legally wedded wife of late M. Damodaran and that plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born through the said lawful wedlock solemnised in the year 1971 according to Hindu rites and customs. During the subsistence of the said marriage, Damodaran developed intimacy with the first defendant Anusuya and defendants 2 to 5 were born through such relationship. According to the plaintiffs, no valid marriage was ever solemnised between Damodaran and the first defendant and therefore defendants 2 to 5 could not claim the status of legitimate heirs through a lawful marriage.

4. It was further pleaded that Damodaran died intestate on 27.09.2001 leaving behind several movable and immovable properties including residential properties, landed properties, bank deposits, business assets, vehicles, jewellery and other movables. The plaintiffs alleged that after the death of Damodaran, the first defendant, with an ulterior motive, had wrongfully obtained a legal heirship certificate exclusively in favour of defendants 1 to 5 by suppressing the plaintiff and her children from the list of legal heirs of the deceased Damodaran. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants were attempting to alienate and encumber both the movable and immovable properties belonging to the deceased.

5. The plaintiff further stated that she was collecting the revenue and title records relating to the suit properties standing in the name of the deceased and reserved her right to file a separate partition suit before the competent Court. Pending such proceedings, she sought permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from alienating the properties, effecting mutation in the revenue records, and withdrawing the monetary deposits of the deceased.

6.The first defendant specifically denied the plaint allegations that the first plaintiff Vasantha was the legally wedded wife of late M. Damodaran and that plaintiffs 2 to 5 were his legitimate children. The first defendant contended that she alone was the legally wedded wife of Damodaran and that their marriage was solemnised on 15.07.1979 according to Hindu rites and customs. It was further pleaded that after the marriage, they lived together continuously as husband and wife and were recognised by relatives and society as a lawful family.

7. The first defendant further contended that defendants 2 to 5 were born through the lawful wedlock between herself and Damodaran and therefore they alone were the legitimate legal heirs entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. According to her, the plaintiffs had fabricated documents and created false records after the death of Damodaran in order to unlawfully claim status as legal heirs.

8. She also contended the nature of the properties, that some of the properties were ancestral properties and several other items mentioned in the plaint did not belong to Damodaran at all. Certain movables and deposits were further claimed to be the exclusive properties of the first defendant. On these grounds, the first defendant sought dismissal of both suits.

9. The defendants 2 to 5 adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant and supported her claim that she alone was the legally wedded wife of Damodaran. They contended that they were the legitimate children born through th