Supreme Court rules on property rights of children from void marriages in partition suits: Raja Gounder vs. M. Sengodan (2024) INSC 47 (19 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 47

Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can children born from a void or voidable marriage claim a share in their father’s property when the family is undergoing a partition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal concerning a property dispute. The core issue revolved around whether children from unions not recognized as valid marriages under the law could still inherit property rights. The Court, in this judgment, clarified the legal position, emphasizing the rights of children in such circumstances. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, with the opinion authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed in 1985 by M. Sengodan and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) seeking partition and separate possession of agricultural lands. The dispute centered around the family of Muthusamy Gounder, who passed away in 1982. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be the son and wife, respectively, of Muthusamy Gounder, seeking a share in the ancestral property. The suit was initially filed against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Later, Raja Gounder and others (Appellants) were impleaded as Defendant Nos. 3 to 5, claiming to be children of Muthusamy Gounder through another wife. The Appellants contended that they, along with Respondent No. 1, were entitled to a share in the property as legal heirs of Muthusamy Gounder.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the marriage of Respondent No. 2 and Appellant No. 2 with Muthusamy Gounder was not proven and hence, they were not coparceners. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partition, holding that the marriages of Respondent No. 2 and Appellant No. 2 with Muthusamy Gounder were not proven. Consequently, the claim for coparcenary rights was rejected. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Defines “admission” as a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
• Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Specifies that statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent, or by a person from whom interest is derived, can be considered as admissions. The section reads as follows:

  “18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent. ––Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions.
  by suitor in representative character. ––Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
  Statements made by ––
  (1) by party interested in subject -matter.––persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject -matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or
  (2) by person from whom interest derived. ––persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject -matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.”

The Court also referred to the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) 10 SCC 1, which clarified the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that even if the marriages of Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 with Muthusamy Gounder were not valid, the children (Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1) are still entitled to a share in the property as sons of Muthusamy Gounder.
• They relied on documentary evidence, specifically Ex. B-6 (a mortgage deed) and Ex. B-3 (a joint patta), where Muthusamy Gounder acknowledged Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 3 as his sons.
• They contended that these documents constitute an admission by Muthusamy Gounder, which is binding on Respondent No. 3, who also claims through him.
• The Appellants sought a preliminary decree of partition, first between Muthusamy Gounder and Respondent No. 3, and then distributing Muthusamy Gounder’s share among his children.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 argued that the findings of fact by the lower courts should not be reconsidered.
• They contended that there was no evidence to prove that Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and Respondent No. 1 were children of Muthusamy Gounder.
• They argued that the ratio of Revanasiddappa (supra) could not be applied without proof of the status of the children.

Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellants innovatively used the mortgage deed (Ex. B-6) and joint patta (Ex. B-3) as admissions by Muthusamy Gounder to establish the status of his children, even when the marriages were not proven.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core question of whether the Appellants and Respondent No. 1, as children of Muthusamy Gounder, were entitled to a share in the property, despite the lack of proof of valid marriages between their mothers and Muthusamy Gounder. The sub-issue was whether the documents produced by the Appellants constituted an admission by Muthusamy Gounder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji [AIR 1943 PC 83]* to establish that a statement made by a person is evidence against those who claim through him.
• The Court agreed with the High Court of Karnataka’s view in Nirmala v. Rukminibai [AIR 1994 Kar 247]* that an admission by a common ancestor is binding in matters of inheritance.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun [(2023) 10 SCC 1]* regarding the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages.
• The Court used Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to define “admission”.
• The Court used Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to determine what constitutes an admission by a party to a proceeding or a person from whom interest is derived.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the documentary evidence, particularly the mortgage deed (Ex. B-6) and the joint patta (Ex. B-3), which contained admissions by Muthusamy Gounder acknowledging Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 3 as his sons. The Court also considered the legal principle established in Revanasiddappa (supra), which protects the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The Court emphasized that a suit for partition should be decided based on the admitted circumstances and evidence on record. The Court also noted that the Trial Court and the High Court had failed to mould the relief based on the evidence presented.

Fact:Law Ratio: The ratio of Fact to Law is 60:40, indicating that the Court was more influenced by the factual evidence of the admissions made by Muthusamy Gounder.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the documentary evidence (Ex. B-6 and B-3) as admissions by Muthusamy Gounder, and applied the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa (supra) to conclude that the children were entitled to a share in the property. The court rejected the lower courts’ view that the absence of proof of valid marriages would preclude the children from inheriting property.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The mortgage deed (Ex. B-6) and the joint patta (Ex. B-3) clearly stated that Muthusamy Gounder acknowledged Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 as his sons.
• These documents were considered as admissions under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Court applied the principle in Revanasiddappa (supra), that children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to inherit their parents’ property.
• The Court found that the lower courts failed to consider the admitted circumstances and mold the relief accordingly.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The documentary evidence shows that Muthusamy Gounder treated Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 as his sons.”

“The statement in Ex. B -6 is a clear admission of Muthusamy Gounder as to how he treated Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 as his sons.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Children born from void or voidable marriages have a right to inherit their parents’ property.
• Admissions made by a person, especially in documents, are strong evidence and can be used against those who claim through him.
• Courts should consider all admitted circumstances and evidence on record to mold the relief in partition suits.
• The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the rights of children should be protected, regardless of the validity of their parents’ marriage.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and passed a preliminary decree of partition for the plaint schedule properties. The partition was directed to be done in two stages: first, a notional partition between Muthusamy Gounder and Respondent No. 3, and second, the distribution of Muthusamy Gounder’s share equally among his children (Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 3).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to a share in the property of their parents. This judgment reinforces the principle established in Revanasiddappa (supra) and clarifies the application of Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the context of partition suits. This case clarifies that the courts must consider the admitted circumstances and evidence on record to mould the relief in partition suits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Raja Gounder vs. M. Sengodan clarifies the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages in the context of partition suits. The Court held that such children are entitled to a share in their parents’ property, based on the principle established in Revanasiddappa (supra) and the admissions made by their father in documentary evidence. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering all admitted circumstances and evidence on record to mold the relief in partition suits, ensuring that the rights of children are protected.

Category

Parent Category: Family Law

Child Categories:

• Partition Suit
• Property Rights
• Children’s Rights
• Void Marriage
• Voidable Marriage
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Parent Category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Child Categories:

• Section 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for children born out of void or voidable marriages?

A: This judgment confirms that children born from void or voidable marriages have the same rights to inherit their parents’ property as children born from valid marriages. This ensures that children are not penalized for the circumstances of their birth.

Q: What is a ‘void’ marriage?

A: A void marriage is one that is invalid from the beginning, as if it never existed in the eyes of the law. This could be due to reasons such as bigamy or incest.

Q: What is a ‘voidable’ marriage?

A: A voidable marriage is one that is valid until one of the parties takes legal steps to annul it. This could be due to reasons such as fraud or coercion.

Q: What is the significance of ‘admission’ in this case?

A: In this case, the mortgage deed and joint patta where Muthusamy Gounder acknowledged certain individuals as his sons were considered as admissions. These admissions were crucial in establishing the children’s right to inherit their father’s property.

Q: How does this judgment affect property partition suits?

A: This judgment clarifies that in partition suits, courts must consider the rights of all children, including those born from void or voidable marriages. Courts are also required to consider all admitted circumstances and evidence on record to mold the relief in partition suits.