Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

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