Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nasik, which decreed the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff No.1, Chandrabhagabai, filed the suit on behalf of herself and her minor children, claiming that she was married to Rajaram after the death of his first wife in a Gandharva form of marriage about 15-20 years prior. Rajaram died in April 1969, leaving behind his first wife's son Vasant (defendant No.2) and the plaintiffs from the second marriage. The defendant No.1 Khandu is the uncle of Rajaram. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and granted partition. The High Court, in the second appeal, considered the validity of the Gandharva marriage. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide specific details of the marriage but stated it was performed in the presence of a priest in Gandharva form. The court held that under Hindu law, a marriage in Gandharva form is valid, and the children born from such marriage are legitimate. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the ancestral property. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree for partition and separate possession.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Validity of Marriage - Gandharva Form - Marriage performed in Gandharva form is recognized as a valid form of marriage under Hindu law, and children born from such marriage are legitimate and entitled to inherit ancestral property. (Paras 3-5)
B) Partition - Right to Partition - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Widow and children of a deceased coparcener are entitled to claim partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family property. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Rajaram in Gandharva form is valid and whether the children born from such marriage are entitled to a share in the ancestral property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nasik.
Law Points
- Validity of Gandharva marriage under Hindu law
- Legitimacy of children from Gandharva marriage
- Right to partition and separate possession
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (10) 92
SECOND APPEAL NO.201 OF 1989
Miss A.R.S. Baxi for appellants, Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Mr. P.N. Joshi for respondent nos.1 to 4, Ms Deepa Matondkar i/b Mr. J.N. Pawar for respondent no.5
Khandu alias Kanderao Ramchandra Gode (since deceased by his heirs Anjanabai Khandu Gode, Jagannath Khande Gode, Sitabai Madhavrao Sonawane, Janakabai Madhavrao Atre, Vithabai Kedu Kushar)
Chandrabhagabai Rajaram Gade, Chandrakant Rajaram Gade, Pushpa Rajaram Gade, Usha Rajaram Gade, Namdeo Vithal Bhalerao (since deceased by his legal representatives Shobha G. Patil, Sou Sitabai Namdeo Bhalerao), Rajaram Vithal Bhalerao, Vasant Rajaram Gade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against judgment and order of 2nd Additional District Judge, Nasik decreeing suit for partition and separate possession.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the appellate decree and restore the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the validity of the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Rajaram in Gandharva form and the consequent entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the property.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit on 31st July 1981; 2nd Additional District Judge, Nasik decreed the suit on 25th October 1985.
Issues
Whether the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Rajaram in Gandharva form is valid under Hindu law.
Whether the children born from such marriage are legitimate and entitled to a share in the ancestral property.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the marriage was not valid as no particulars were given and it was not performed in accordance with customary rites.
Respondents contended that the marriage was performed in Gandharva form, which is a recognized form of marriage under Hindu law, and the children are legitimate.
Ratio Decidendi
A marriage performed in Gandharva form is valid under Hindu law, and children born from such marriage are legitimate and entitled to inherit ancestral property. The court upheld the right of the widow and children to claim partition.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff did not give any particulars about the year or date of marriage. It was submitted that the marriage had taken place in presence and at the hands of priest in a Gandharva Form.
After the marriage she gave birth to Respondent nos.2 to 4 who were begotten from the said marriage.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 for partition and separate possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31st July 1981. The plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nasik, who decreed the suit on 25th October 1985. The defendants then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
