The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a son from a void marriage is entitled to a 5/6th share in his father’s estate, ending a 30-year property dispute.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Andhra Pradesh: In a landmark decision on Hindu succession law, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has ruled that a son born from a void marriage can claim a 5/6th share in his deceased father’s estate, which includes shares inherited from his paternal grandmother and stepmother. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, clarified that a fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree entered into during the son’s minority, without court permission, is maintainable.
This ruling brings clarity to succession disputes that have lingered for decades, offering a potential end to litigation surrounding the estate of Chennupati Kesava Rao, who passed away intestate in 1990.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolves around Kesava Rao’s estate. He was first married to Chennupati Pushpavathi, with whom he had no children, and later, during the subsistence of his first marriage, he married Chennupati Manikyamba @ Mani. From this second marriage, Chennupati Naga Venkata Krishna was born in 1988.
Kesava Rao died in 1990, survived by his mother Ravamma, his first wife Pushpavathi, and the appellant. His brother’s son, Chennupati Jagan Mohan Rao, became the respondent in the legal battle over succession.
Two suits over the property had already been concluded while the appellant was a minor, resulting in compromise decrees in 1993 and 1995. Upon reaching majority, the appellant filed a fresh suit in 2009 seeking to cancel the 1995 compromise, claiming it was illegal as it was made without court leave during his minority.
Arguments Presented
Appellant:
Senior Counsel Sri N. Subba Rao argued that:
- The compromise decree was entered without court approval, rendering it voidable.
- The appellant is legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- He is entitled to inherit not only his father’s share but also the shares of his paternal grandmother and stepmother, both of whom died intestate.
- The respondent’s claims of succession through wills were unproven.
Respondent:
Senior Counsel Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan countered that:
- The fresh suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, which restricts filing a suit to set aside a compromise decree.
- The respondent claimed testamentary succession, alleging wills executed by Ravamma and Pushpavathi in his favor.
Court’s Analysis
The court clarified that a compromise decree entered on behalf of a minor without the court’s leave is voidable. Upon attaining majority, the minor can challenge it within the limitation period. The bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC does not apply in such cases.
The court rejected the respondent’s claims of succession through wills due to lack of evidence. The case was determined to be one of intestate succession.
The court held that:
- Share from Father: The appellant is entitled to 1/3 of Kesava Rao’s estate.
- Share from Paternal Grandmother: The appellant inherits 1/6th of the estate through his grandmother, Ravamma.
- Share from Stepmother: As Pushpavathi died issueless, the appellant, being her stepson and the husband’s heir, inherits her 1/3rd share.
This brings the appellant’s total share to 5/6, while the respondent receives the remaining 1/6th.
Final Decision:
Exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, the High Court:
- Affirmed the setting aside of the 1995 compromise decree.
- Passed a preliminary decree confirming the appellant’s 5/6th share and the respondent’s 1/6th share.
- Directed the trial court to proceed with a final decree based on these shares, avoiding a fresh partition suit.
- Partly allowed the appeal and rejected cross-objections. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Appearance:
Counsel for the appellant: Sri N. Subba Rao
Counsel for the respondent: Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan
Case Title:
Chennupati Naga Venkata Krishna versus Chennupati Jagan Mohan Rao
APPEAL SUIT No.841 OF 2015
Read Judgment: