The Kerala High Court ruled that a daughter born within four months of marriage is legally presumed to be legitimate and entitled to an equal share in her father’s property. The Court set aside a trial court decree, holding that conception before marriage does not defeat the presumption of legitimacy under law.
The Kerala High Court, in an important judgment dated 19 December 2025, has ruled that a daughter born within four months of her parents’ marriage is a legitimate child and is entitled to an equal share in her deceased father’s property.
The Court set aside an earlier preliminary decree which had wrongly excluded the daughter from inheritance and held that statutory presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, along with strong oral and documentary evidence, clearly proved her legitimacy and paternity.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar while allowing a Regular First Appeal filed by the widow and children of a deceased man.
The appeal challenged a partition decree passed by the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The dispute related to the properties left behind by Krishnan, who died intestate in December 2012.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the second plaintiff, a daughter born on 12 May 2001, within four months of the marriage between her mother and Krishnan, could be treated as Krishnan’s legitimate child and thereby entitled to an equal share in his estate.
The widow and her three children claimed that all of them were Class I heirs under Hindu law and were entitled to equal shares in the property.
However, Krishnan’s mother opposed this claim and questioned the paternity of the second plaintiff. She argued that the child could not have been conceived within the marriage and denied that there was any premarital relationship between Krishnan and the first plaintiff.
The trial court accepted the defence version and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the paternity of the second plaintiff.
As a result, it passed a preliminary decree directing partition only among the widow, two other children, and Krishnan’s mother, completely excluding the second plaintiff from inheritance.
Aggrieved by this finding, the widow and children approached the Kerala High Court. Before the High Court, the appellants relied on oral testimony, documentary evidence, and statutory presumptions under the Evidence Act.
One of the key witnesses was the father of the first plaintiff. He testified that Krishnan had accepted responsibility for the pregnancy even before the marriage and had continued to treat the second plaintiff as his daughter throughout his lifetime.
The witness also stated that when objections were raised before the marriage, Krishnan openly acknowledged his paternity in the presence of his own parents.
The High Court strongly criticised the trial court for rejecting this testimony on the ground that it was not direct evidence.
The Bench held that statements made by a deceased person regarding blood relationships are legally relevant and admissible under Section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, provided such statements were made before the dispute arose and the person had special knowledge of the relationship.
Since Krishnan had passed away, his acknowledgment of the child could legally be proved through a witness who had heard him make those statements.
The Court also relied on Section 50 of the Evidence Act, which makes conduct showing an opinion about a relationship a relevant fact.
The Bench observed that Krishnan’s consistent conduct in acknowledging the child, supporting her official documentation, and treating her as his daughter throughout his life was strong evidence of his belief regarding her paternity.
The Court referred to settled Supreme Court judgments which recognise that such conduct can be proved through witnesses who have observed it.
Apart from oral evidence, the High Court also considered important documentary records, including the second plaintiff’s passport and Krishnan’s pension records, both of which described her as his daughter.
Although these documents had been marked tentatively before the trial court, the High Court permitted the production of the original records at the appellate stage, holding that they were highly relevant to deciding the real issue in dispute.
A crucial part of the judgment focused on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a conclusive presumption that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage is legitimate.
The Bench clearly explained that this presumption does not fail merely because the child may have been conceived before the marriage. What is required to rebut the presumption is strict proof that the spouses had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten.
The Court found that the defendants had completely failed to discharge this heavy burden. The oral testimony of the first defendant was found to be a simple denial without any supporting evidence.
In contrast, the plaintiffs had positively established access between the spouses and repeated acknowledgment of the child by Krishnan.
The High Court held that the trial court committed a serious legal error by refusing to apply Section 112 of the Evidence Act solely on the ground that the child was conceived before marriage. The Bench made it clear that such reasoning is contrary to settled law.
After examining all the evidence and legal principles, the Kerala High Court conclusively held that the second plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of Krishnan. Accordingly, the Court ruled that she is entitled to an equal share in her father’s property along with the other Class I heirs.
The appeal was allowed, and the preliminary decree passed by the Sub Court, Chavakkad was modified. The High Court directed that the properties be partitioned into five equal shares, with one share each allotted to the widow, all three children, and Krishnan’s mother.
Case Title:
Sujatha Krishnan & Ors. v. Radha Mohandas & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CM Rekha Gupta
