CASE NAME: Sujatha Krishnan & Ors. v. Radha Mohandas & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: R.F.A. No. 290 of 201
COURT: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
DATE: 19 December 2025
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sathish, Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Krishna Kumar
FACTS
This case originated from a suit for partition of property that belonged to one Krishnan, who died intestate on the 10th of December, 2012. The first plaintiff is the widow of Krishnan, and the third and fourth plaintiffs are undisputed children of Krishnan. However, it is upon the second plaintiff that controversy lies because she was born four months after the marriage of the first plaintiff and Krishnan. The plaintiffs argued that, despite the second plaintiff being born a short while after the marriage, she was actually Krishnan’s biological daughter, as she was born out of a relationship the couple had prior to the marriage. Moreover, upon Krishnan’s death, they argued that the entire class I heirs, including plaintiff No. 2, had a right to share in the suit properties equally.
The defendants, who were represented by Krishnan’s mother and brother, denied the paternity of plaintiff No. 2. They denied any premarital relationship and stated that prior to marriage, there was no possibility of access having taken place between Krishnan and the first plaintiff, as it was an arranged marriage.
It rejected the plaintiffs’ plea about plaintiff No. 2’s paternity and passed a preliminary decree for partition excluding her. The plaintiff – appellants, aggrieved by such exclusion moved the High Court of Kerala in appeal. Sans is loving, cares for his brother Papyrus, and is protective of him.
ISSUES
- Whether plaintiff No. 2 is the biological and legitimate daughter of late Krishnan.
- Whether oral evidence as to the dead person acknowledging paternity is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.
3.Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is relevant if the child is born a few months after the marriage.
- Whether plaintiff No. 2 is to share equally in the ancestral properties as a Class I legal heir.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 112, Evidence Act 1872 – Presumption of Legitimacy
- Sections 32(5) and 50,Indian Evidence Act,1872: Statements of deceased persons and proof of relationship
- Section 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Oral evidence
- Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956
ARGUMENT
PETITIONER
The appellants argued that the trial court was wrong to reject the credible oral and documentary evidence available to prove the parentage of plaintiff No. 2. The appellants relied on the testimony of the first plaintiff’s father, who asserted that Krishnan had admitted to the pregnancy and had always referred to the second plaintiff as his sister.
Additionally, it was also pleaded that documented evidence like the passport belonging to the child and the pension documents belonging to Krishnan evidenced this recognition. The appellants also relied on Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which states that legitimacy is conclusively presumed unless non-access is strictly proved.
RESPONDENTS
The defendants alleged that plaintiff No. 2 could not be the child of Krishnan, as she was born so soon after marriage. Both denied any pre-marital relations or any possibility of accessThey further alleged that the indirect evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in the court would neither rebut the conclusion of the trial court nor amount to sufficient evidence to displace the findings of the trial court. They alleged that the statutory presumption under Section 112 is not applicable in view of the time of birth.
ANALYSIS
Kerala High Court thoroughly analyzed the provisions related to the principles of paternity and legitimacy of evidence. It was clearly stated by the court that the trial court miserably misunderstood the provisions of Section 32(5) and Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that the acknowledgment of a blood relation made by a deceased person can be considered an admissible statement if it is made to a person who overheard it. This is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. The activity of Krishnan, acknowledging the presence of the child, disagreeing with his parents’ objections, as well as being with plaintiff No. 2 as his daughter, is highly relevant under the provision of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. Most importantly, the Court reiterated the force of the presumption available under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that the child will be considered legitimate, regardless of the fact that it was born a short while into the marriage, provided access between the husband and the wife is proved. The onus of proof for non-access rests squarely on the person challenging the legitimacy of the child, and simple denial will not suffice. The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court decision to arrive at the conclusion that the presumption of legitimacy can also cover births occurring immediately subsequent to the marriage, unless otherwise conclusively displaced.
JUDGEMENT
The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of the trial court with regard to excluding plaintiff No. 2 from the inheritances.
The interim decree was subsequently modified, ordering the suit properties to be partitioned into five equal portions, and one of such portions to be allocated to each of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Only the plaintiff No. 2 is held to be a legitimate daughter of the deceased Krishnan, and she is categorized under-Class I heirs, who are entitled to joint succession rights. An order as to costs was not requested.
CONCLUSION
This is a robust reaffirmation of the protective attitude of the law towards legitimacy and inheritance rights. Thus, by focusing on presumptions under statutes, acknowledgment by families, and actions as evidence, the Kerala High Court refused to permit a hyper-technical approach to be situated by evidence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: ARCHITHA MANIKANTAN
