Supreme Court Affirms Rights of Children from Void Marriages to Inherit Ancestral Property
In a landmark judgment on Friday, January 19, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the rights of children born from void and voidable marriages to inherit their parents’ property. This significant ruling, emphasizes the legal status of such children as legitimate heirs.
Also read- Supreme Court Elevates 56 Lawyers To Senior Advocates, Including 11 Women (lawchakra.in)
The Bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti, reversed the High Court’s findings, asserting that children from void and voidable marriages should be treated as legitimate and entitled to a share in their common ancestor’s property. The judgment states,
“Once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage.”
This case originated from a dispute involving Muthusamy Gounder, who had three marriages, two of which were declared void. Gounder fathered five children – four sons and one daughter. The legitimate son, born from a valid marriage, filed a suit for partition, which was initially decreed in his favor by the trial court. However, the children from the void marriages, who were also defendants in the trial court, challenged this decision in the High Court, only to have their appeal dismissed.
The Supreme Court, in its review, focused on the admission by the common ancestor (Muthusamy Gounder) that he treated the children from his void marriages as legitimate. Justice Bhatti, authoring the judgment, noted,
“The Privy Council in Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji and others, held that a statement made by a person is not only evidence against the person but is also evidence against those who claim through him.”
The Court examined various documentary evidence, including a mortgage deed and voter lists, to conclude that Gounder had indeed acknowledged these children as his own. The judgment elaborates,
“By applying Sections 17 and 18 of the (Indian Evidence Act) Act, we are convinced that Muthusamy Gounder made a statement describing Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 as his sons and treated as an admission by record.”
Also read- Supreme Court Criticizes Madhya Pradesh Police For Protecting Goons Over Victims (lawchakra.in)
In light of these findings, the Court determined that denying these children a share in the property notionally partitioned in favor of Muthusamy Gounder was unsustainable both legally and factually. The Court observed,
“Once the status of the parties, other than Respondent No. 3, is established as the extended family of the propositus, irrespective of whether the marriages of Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 with Muthusamy Gounder are void or voidable, 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 ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s previous judgment in Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and others, which recognized the rights of children from void or voidable marriages in their parent’s property. The Court concluded by setting aside the judgments under appeal and passing a preliminary decree of partition for the plaint schedule properties.
Advocate N.S. Nappinai represented the appellants, while Advocate Vinodh Kanna B. appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS VERSUS M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS