Compromise Decree Without Leave of Court is Voidable at the Minor’s Instance: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Right of Son Born from Void Marriage to Inherit Ancestral Property

In a significant pronouncement strengthening the rights of minors and legitimized children under Hindu law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on September 26, 2025, ruled that a minor can challenge a compromise decree entered during his minority without the court’s leave. The Court also clarified that a child born from a void marriage is entitled to inherit not only the property of the father but also the property that devolves on the father's widow and mother, if they die intestate.

Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that:

“A compromise on behalf of a minor without the leave of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor. Such a compromise decree is not protected by the bar contained under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.”

The judgment sets a decisive precedent on the interplay between Order 32 Rule 7 CPC and Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, reiterating that the rights of a minor cannot be waived without express judicial approval.

“A Child Born of a Void Marriage Is a Legitimate Heir of Both Father and His Legal Wife’s Estate If She Dies Intestate”

The Court also settled an important question of inheritance under Hindu law, holding that a son born out of a void marriage, once legitimized under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to a full share in his father’s ancestral and self-acquired property, and is not barred from succeeding to the estate of his father's widow or mother under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

“Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act entitles such a legitimized child to inherit even the estate of the father's widow or mother, if they die intestate,” the Bench ruled, affirming the rights of the plaintiff.

Origin of the Dispute: Property Claim by Son Born from Void Marriage

The case revolved around the estate of Chennupati Kesava Rao, who died intestate in 1990. The plaintiff, Chennupati Naga Venkata Krishna, was born in 1988 from a marriage solemnized between Kesava Rao and one Chennupati Manikyamba, while Kesava Rao’s first wife, Chennupati Pushpavathi, was still alive. The second marriage was therefore void under Hindu law.

After Kesava Rao’s death, two suits concerning his estate were filed—O.S. No. 552 of 1994 and O.S. No. 197 of 2009. The former suit, filed during the plaintiff’s minority, was settled through a compromise decree dated 07.07.1995, entered without obtaining leave of the court under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC.

Upon attaining majority, the plaintiff challenged the compromise decree, alleging that it was executed behind his back and without legal sanction. He claimed rightful inheritance in his father’s property as a legitimized child under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and also sought a share in the properties inherited by Pushpavathi and Ravamma (his stepmother and grandmother).

The Legal Challenge: Was the Compromise Decree Binding on the Minor?

The pivotal legal question was whether a suit challenging a compromise decree entered during a minor’s incapacity is barred under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, which prohibits a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful.

The Court answered in the negative, holding: “There is no absolute bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC when the compromise decree is impugned by a minor who was not properly represented and for whom no leave of court was taken. Such a decree is not binding on the minor.”

The Court relied on precedents such as Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai and Kaushalya Devi v. Baijnath Sayal to reiterate that a compromise made without court’s leave is not void ab initio, but voidable, and is liable to be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority.

Court Rejects Alleged Wills, Rules Intestate Succession Applies

The defendant had claimed that both Pushpavathi and Ravamma (Kesava Rao's wife and mother) had executed wills in his favor, thereby excluding the plaintiff from succession. However, the Court found that no will was filed or proved as required under the Indian Succession Act.

The Court held: “A will must be proved under Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of any valid and proven will, succession must be deemed to be intestate.”

This finding made the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applicable, under which the plaintiff—being the son of Kesava Rao—was entitled to a share

Interplay of Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act

One of the core legal points clarified in this judgment is the interplay between Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court had held that the plaintiff could only inherit from his father, not from his stepmother or grandmother. This was overturned by the High Court.

The Bench held: “Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act does not restrict the legitimized child from succeeding to the estate of the father’s widow or mother. On the contrary, as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves upon the heirs of the husband in certain conditions, and the son is such a legal heir.”

Therefore, the plaintiff was found entitled to:

• One-third share in the father’s property as a Class-I heir

• One-sixth share in the grandmother’s estate

• Full one-third share in the property left by the stepmother, Pushpavathi

Plaintiff Entitled to 5/6th Share, Defendant to 1/6th

On determining the rightful share of each party, the High Court declared:

“The plaintiff is entitled to 5/6th share and the defendant to 1/6th share in the A-schedule property of both O.S. No. 197 of 2009 and O.S. No. 552 of 1994.”

The Court set aside the earlier compromise decree and passed a preliminary decree for partition, ordering that the partition should be conducted by metes and bounds. Importantly, the Court directed that:

“So far as possible, the parties may be allowed to retain possession of the properties presently in their control under the earlier compromise, provided that the distribution does not exceed their legitimate shares.”

This judgment is a major reinforcement of protective principles for minors in civil proceedings, affirming that no compromise can be thrust upon a minor without judicial scrutiny. It also significantly expands the scope of legitimacy and inheritance rights of children born from void marriages, allowing them to stake claim not just to the father's estate but also to other estates inherited through the father.

The ruling carefully harmonizes Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the succession scheme under the Hindu Succession Act, providing much-needed clarity on an area often plagued by misinterpretation and societal prejudice.

Date of Decision: 26.09.2025