Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Share in Ancestral Property for Children of Void or Voidable Marriages

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set a precedent by upholding the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages to their ancestral property. The Civil Appeal No. of 2024, involving the appellants Raja Gounder and others against respondents M. Sengodan and others, was resolved with a detailed analysis of family relations and rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The dispute centered on the partition and possession of agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu, following the demise of Muthusamy Gounder. The appellants, later added to the case, claimed their share as legal heirs, despite the disputed legitimacy of their parentage. The initial suit, filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, was dismissed by both the Trial Court and the High Court due to the non-establishment of valid marriages of Muthusamy Gounder with Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2.

In a significant observation, the Supreme Court, led by Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, noted, “Denying the children of Muthusamy Gounder a share in the property of notional partitioned in favour of Muthusamy Gounder, is unsustainable in law and fact.” This statement underlines the Court’s recognition of the rights of children irrespective of the legal status of their parents' marriage.

The Court’s analysis leaned heavily on Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding admissions and declarations in documented evidence. Key to the decision was a mortgage deed executed by Muthusamy Gounder, which acknowledged the appellants and Respondent No. 1 as his sons. This admission was deemed legally binding.

The judgement also references the case of Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and others, reinforcing the principle that children from void or voidable marriages are entitled to shares in their parents' property. “The property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law, has to be ascertained,” the Court added, emphasizing the legal rights of all children to parental property.

The final verdict was the issuance of a preliminary decree of partition, dividing the property first between Respondent No. 3 and Muthusamy Gounder and then among his children, thus allowing the appeal. This ruling is a significant step in ensuring equal rights and justice for children born under all circumstances.

Date of Decision: 19th January 2024

RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS VS M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News