Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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