Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case law- Section 16 - Revanasiddappa and Ors. vs. Mallikarjun and Ors.
Bench: Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly
Facts:
- The father of the Appellants (herein Defendant no. 1) had solemnized a marriage with Plaintiff no. 3 and had two children (Plaintiff no. 1 and 2).
- The Defendant no. 1solemnized another marriage during the subsistence of the first, with Defendant no. 4 and had two children (Appellants) with her.
- The Plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the Defendants for their 1/4th share each, of the ancestral property which had been given to the Defendant no. 1 by way of grant.
Issue:
Whether the right to property of children born out of void marriages, restricted to the self-acquired property of parents or extends even to their ancestral property?
Contentions of the Appellants:
- The properties of the Defendant no. 1were not ancestral properties at all but were self-acquired properties, except for one property which was ancestral.
- TheDefendant no. 4 is legally wedded wife of Defendant no. 1 and hence the Plaintiffs had no right to claim partition.
- Anoral partition had already taken placebefore the filing of the petition by the Plaintiff.
Contentions of the Respondents:
- The marriage between Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 4 is void since at the time of marriage the first marriage was subsisting.
- Children born out of the void marriage would not be entitled to any share in the ancestral property of the Defendant no. 1 as they were not coparceners.
Background:
The Trial Court held that the second marriage solemnized between the Defendant no.1 and Defendant no. 4 is void and Plaintiff no. 3 to be the legally wedded wife of the Defendant no. 3, by virtue of which all plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition and to 1/4th share each in the suit property. This judgment was challenged before the Appellate court which affirmed the findings of the lower court but pronounced that illegitimate children have to be treated at par with coparceners having a right to a share in the coparcenary property. All three plaintiffs along with Defendant no.1 and the Appellants were entitled to 1/6th share each in the ancestral property.
Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs approached the High Court which entitled only the Plaintiff no.1, Plaintiff no.2 and Defendant no.1 to 1/3rd share each of the properties. The Appellants claim being rejected, they approached the Apex Court which pronounced its judgment below.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court while observing that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein referred to as the “Act”) declares that children of a void or voidable marriage as legitimate but expressly provides that they are entitled to claim only the property of their parents and not of any other relation, ruled that such children shall be considered at par with the legitimate off springs of valid marriages without any discrimination and be entitled to all the right in the self-acquired and ancestral property of their parents. However, the only limitation is that such children cannot ask for partition before the death of their parents.
Thereafter, for the purposes of the case in hand, the Court while setting aside the judgments of the courts below, viewed that the Appellants which are children from a second wife of the Defendant no.1 had rights to his ancestral property.
However, the Court found it appropriate to refer it to larger bench of the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
