CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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