The Supreme Court has ruled that children from marriages declared void or voidable have the right to a share in property hypothetically divided between their parents. The legal proceedings focused on the division and ownership of agricultural lands considered as joint family or ancestral assets. The claim for a property share was attributed to the deceased, not as coparceners, but as the legal heirs.
Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “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.”
The appellants were represented by AOR Rakesh K. Sharma, and AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar represented the respondents. The trial court dismissed the heirs’ coparcener status, citing insufficient evidence to establish their parents’ marriage. The Madras High Court concurred with this decision, declaring the partition claim based on coparcenary between the parties as invalid.
The Supreme Court pointed out the common infirmity in the examination of issues by both the Trial and the Appellate Courts. The Court remarked, “In the present case, the claim as a coparcenary is unacceptable for want of evidence on the factum of the marriage of Muthusamy Gounder with Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2; the courts below ought to have considered the relief from admitted circumstances on record.”
The Court dismissed the argument that the parties claiming a share in the property lacked evidence to support their status.
The Court concluded, “We allow the appeal by passing a preliminary decree of partition for the plaint schedule properties, firstly between Respondent No. 3 and Muthusamy Gounder. Secondly, in the notionally partitioned share of Muthusamy Gounder, his children, i.e., Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 are allotted equal shares.”
The Court set aside the judgments of both the appellate and trial court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
