Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a suit filed by respondent No.1, the original plaintiff, seeking partition, possession, and declaration that a sale deed dated 29 June 2010 executed in favour of respondent No.3 was null and void. The suit properties comprised agricultural land Gut No.214 and a house property. The plaintiff claimed that these were the separate properties of her deceased father Rajendra and that she was being denied her share after his death. The appellant, original defendant No.1, was Rajendra's first legally wedded wife and the plaintiff's stepmother; respondent No.2, original defendant No.2, was Rajendra's brother; respondent No.3 was the purchaser of part of the house property under the challenged sale deed. The appellant contested the suit by disputing the plaintiff's relationship and contending that she was the only legally wedded wife of Rajendra and that the house property was self-acquired. Respondent No.3 defended the alienation as a bona fide purchaser for value. The trial court decreed the suit, awarding the plaintiff half share in the house and one-fourth share in land Gut No.214, and held that the sale deed was bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff. The lower appellate court confirmed that decree. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the plaintiff was not a coparcener and therefore the suit for partition was not maintainable, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarujun. The appellant further submitted that at most the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance during the lifetime of the appellant and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Shardabai, the plaintiff's mother. The respondent, through counsel, argued that the plaintiff's mother was the wedded wife of Rajendra, that her status was unchallenged, and that the plaintiff had a share which opened upon Rajendra's death. The High Court framed the substantial question of law as whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for partition and claim a share when she was an illegitimate child and not a coparcener. The court noted from the evidence that the appellant was the first legally wedded wife of Rajendra, the plaintiff was born from the second wife Shardabai, and Shardabai's marriage to Rajendra was solemnized by rituals while the first marriage subsisted. Applying the principles from Revanasiddappa, the court held that the marriage between Shardabai and Rajendra was void under Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but that the plaintiff was statutorily legitimate under Section 16(3) of that Act. The court explained that Section 16(3) confers rights in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person, and that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 must be harmonized with this mandate. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was only entitled to maintenance during the appellant's lifetime, holding that partition opened on the death of Rajendra, that the stepmother's share became her absolute property, and that such reasoning was without legal sanctity. The court also held that if the plaintiff was entitled to share in the self-acquired property of Rajendra, there was no reason to withhold her right to maintain a partition suit; denial of that right would violate Article 15 of the Constitution and the principle ubi jus ibi remedium. The High Court concluded that both courts below had correctly recorded concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the second appeal, disposing of the pending civil application as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Legitimacy of Child from Void Marriage - Child of void marriage statutorily legitimate under Section 16(3) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11, 16(1), 16(3) - Marriage between plaintiff's mother Shardabai and father Rajendra was void because Rajendra's first wife Kamalabai was alive, but by Section 16(3) the plaintiff is conferred legitimacy and entitled to rights in property of her parents, not in property of any other person. Held that plaintiff is legitimate child and entitled to share in self-acquired property of her father (Paras 10-12). B) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Partition Suit - Right of legitimate child to partition father's property - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff may not be coparcener but has interest in her father's property; father died intestate; by legal fiction she is at par with any legitimate daughter; she can maintain suit for partition; denial would violate Article 15 of Constitution and principle ubi jus ibi remedium. Held that suit for partition is maintainable (Paras 12-13). C) Hindu Law - Maintenance of Illegitimate Child - Claim limited to maintenance rejected - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16(3) - Appellant argued plaintiff at most entitled to maintenance till lifetime of appellant; court rejected this as devoid of legal sanctity; partition opens on death of Rajendra and stepmother's share becomes absolute property; plaintiff has no separate maintenance right. Held that plaintiff's right is not limited to maintenance (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for partition and claim share when she is an illegitimate child and especially when she is not a coparcener.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed; pending civil application disposed of as infructuous; concurrent findings of lower courts upheld.
Law Points
- Child of void marriage is legitimate under Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- such child has rights in property of parents only
- not in property of any other person
- provisions of Hindu Succession Act
- 1956 must be harmonized with Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act
- legitimate child may not be coparcener but can maintain partition suit for father's self-acquired property
- denial of partition right violates Article 15 of Constitution of India
- ubi jus ibi remedium
