Raja Gounder and Others v. M. Sengodan and Others.
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 13486 OF 2007.
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Quorum: Hon’ble J. M.M. Sundresh, J. S.V.N. Bhatti.
Date: January 19, 2024.
Facts of the Case:
This case revolves around a dispute over the partition and separate possession of three agricultural lands held by the late Muthusamy Gounder. The plaintiffs claimed to be the son and wife, respectively, of Muthusamy Gounder and sought partition of the properties, asserting the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The defendants denied the marriage between Respondent 2 and Muthusamy Gounder, claiming that only Respondent 1 was a member of Muthusamy Gounder’s HUF. Subsequently, the appellants were impleaded, claiming to be the son, daughter, and wife of Muthusamy Gounder, respectively.
Legal Issues:
- Whether a valid marriage existed between Muthusamy Gounder and Respondents 2 and the appellants’ mother, giving them the status of coparceners in the HUF?
- If the marriages were void or voidable, could the appellants and Respondent 1 still claim a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s property as his children?
- How should the relief be moulded if the appellants and Respondent 1 are entitled to a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s property?
Legal Provisions:
- Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (defining “admission” and “admission by party to proceeding or his agent”).
- Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (conferring legitimacy on children born from void or voidable marriages).
- Sections 3(j), 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (provisions related to HUF, coparcenary property, and succession).
Arguments of the Petitioners (Appellants):
The appellants, represented by Advocate N.S. Nappinai, accepted the findings of the lower courts regarding the status of Respondents 2 and the appellants’ mother as not being wives of Muthusamy Gounder. However, they argued that the courts erred in not moulding the relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence.
The appellants relied on Exhibits B-3 to B-6, which included a registered mortgage deed, joint patta, and electoral rolls, to argue that Muthusamy Gounder treated the appellants and Respondent 1 as his sons. They contended that these documents constituted admissions under Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, binding Respondent 3, who claimed through Muthusamy Gounder.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, the appellants argued that even if the marriages were void or voidable, the children (appellants and Respondent 1) would be entitled to a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Advocate Vinodh Kanna B., representing Respondents 3 and 4, contended that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts did not warrant reconsideration of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution. Alternatively, he argued that the evidence was lacking to establish the status of the appellants and Respondent 1 as children of Muthusamy Gounder, which is a prerequisite for applying the ratio of Revanasiddappa. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
Judgment and Analysis:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts. The court analysed Exhibits B-3 to B-6 and concluded that they constituted admissions by Muthusamy Gounder regarding the status of the appellants and Respondent 1 as his sons under Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court relied on the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa and held that even if the marriages were void or voidable, the children (appellants and Respondent 1) would be entitled to equal shares in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The court criticized the lower courts for failing to mould the relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence, as the suit was for partition. It held that while the claim for partition as coparceners was unacceptable due to the lack of evidence on the factum of marriage, the lower courts should have considered the relief based on the admitted status of the appellants and respondent as Muthusamy Gounder’s children.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree of partition, firstly between Respondent 3 and Muthusamy Gounder, and secondly, allotting equal shares in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share to the appellants and the respondents.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa regarding the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages to inherit their parents’ property. Secondly, it emphasizes the importance of examining and moulding relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence, even if the original claim is not fully substantiated.
The court’s analysis of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act and the application of the concept of “admission” provide valuable guidance on the interpretation and application of these provisions.
Overall, this judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the rights of children and ensuring fair and equitable distribution of property, even in complex family disputes involving questions of legitimacy and succession.
Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.
Click here to read the Judgement.
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 fall into a 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.
