A marriage contracted during the subsistence of a prior valid marriage is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act. Further, a Court cannot grant relief not found in the pleadings or specifically prayed for by the parties, and appellate courts may admit additional evidence if its prior absence was not negligent.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5(1), 11 and 16 - Bigamy - Validity of second marriage - Second marriage contracted during subsistence of valid first marriage is void ab initio - Consent of first wife cannot confer legality - Children born of void marriage are legitimate.

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional evidence - Reception of documents - Permissible if documents are relevant, were not in custody/knowledge of party, and withholding was not due to negligence or suppression.

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 7 - Pleadings and Relief - Court cannot grant relief not prayed for or beyond pleadings - Judication of 'notional partition' not sought in plaint is improper.

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant’s marriage with her deceased husband was void and requested recovery of possession of property. The defendants claimed a valid second marriage by consent and existence of a Will, which was not produced at the trial stage.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the second marriage to be void under Sections 5 and 11, denied damages for possession, but allowed the introduction of the Will as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27. The Court modified the lower court’s decree, declaring the property distribution based on the Will rather than notional partition.

Issues: Whether the second marriage was valid, whether additional evidence (Will) should be received, and whether the trial court erred in granting relief beyond the pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi: A second marriage during an existing marriage is void; a Court cannot grant relief beyond the scope of the pleadings; additional evidence may be received if its absence in trial was not due to the party's negligence.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of parties, trial court history, and framing of issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. contentions of parties regarding marriage validity and trial court errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. admissibility of additional evidence under order xli rule 27 cpc. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. invalidity of second marriage during subsistence of first under hindu law. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. impact of testamentary disposition on property succession versus notional partition. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. limitation of courts to grant relief beyond pleadings. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
7. final orders affirming marriage invalidity and modifying property distribution based on will. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal Suit is filed by the Appellants/Defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.06.2002 in O.S. No. 39 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court at Secunderabad, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration and for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property, came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. It is pertinent to note that along with the present Appeal, the Appellants/Defendants have also filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition vide C.M.P. No. 11472 of 2003 in A.S. No. 999 of 2003, invoking Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence namely, the Will Deed dated 29.03.1998 and the other connected documents.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. Brief Facts:

4. The plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late P. Venkata Swamy, their marriage having been solemnized on 09.05.1965 at Kazipet as per Hindu rites and customs. Late P. Venkata Swamy was employed as a Painter in the Railways, he retired from service on 31.05.1998, and subsequently died on 29.08.1999. During his life time, he nominated the plaintiff No.1 to receive his pensionary benefits, and she is presently receiving family pension from South Central Railway. The plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of late P. Venkata Swamy. She is married and residing with her husband. Upon the intestate death of late P. Venkata Swamy, the plaintiffs succeeded to his estate, including the residential house bearing Plot No.10 at Mettuguda.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 29.08.1999 i.e., the very date of death of late P. Venkata Swamy, the defendants trespassed into the suit schedule property claiming that the defendant No.1 was the second wife of the deceased. It is further alleged that the defendants unlawfully occupied a portion of the said house property, which was earlier vacant, and continued in possession without any lawful entitlement, while the plaintiffs remained in occupation of another portion and a further portion was let out to tenants.

6. In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2000 on the file of learned Family Court at Secunderabad seeking: (i) a declaration that the alleged marriage, if any, between the defendant No.1 and late P. Venkata Swamy is illegal, null and void, and (ii) recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property consisting of two rooms with open space. The plaintiffs also sought damages for use and occupation at the rate of ₹800/- per month from the date of the suit till delivery of possession, along with costs.

7. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendants filed their written statement inter-alia denying all the allegations made by the plaintiffs and contending that the marriage of Defendant No.1 with late P. Venkata Swamy was solemnized on 03.03.1968 as per Hindu rites and caste customs in the presence of elders from both families. It is further stated that the defendant No.1 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12173

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJP. Kalavathi – AppellantVersusP. Lakshmi – RespondentC.M.P. No. 11472 of 2003 | A.S. No. 999 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
P. Kalavathi – Appellant
Versus
P. Lakshmi – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 11472 of 2003 | A.S. No. 999 of 2003