Children born from void marriages must not be denied a share in their parents' property : Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS VERSUS M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS, ruled that offspring born from both void and voidable marriages are to be acknowledged as legitimate children and regarded as an extended family of the common ancestor when determining a rightful share in the common ancestor's property.
Contrary to the High Court's decision, Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti emphasized that if the common ancestor has acknowledged children born from void and voidable marriages as legitimate, then these children are entitled to an equal share in the common ancestor's property alongside those born from valid marriages.
To provide context, Muthusamy Gounder, the common predecessor, had three marriages, two of which were declared void. From these unions, he had five children—four sons and one daughter. The legitimate son (Respondent no.3) from a valid marriage initiated a partition suit before the trial court, which ruled in favor of the legitimate child. The children born from void marriages, who were defendants in the trial, appealed to the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed.
This Civil Appeal to the Supreme Court contested the High Court's decision.
The central issue was whether children born from void marriages have a right to a share in the property of a common ancestor as his successors.
In their observation, Justice Bhatti's judgment highlighted that the common ancestor's admission, treating children from void marriages as legitimate, serves as evidence against his legitimate child making the claim. Referring to the Privy Council's decision in Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji and others, the court stated that a person's statement is evidence not only against that person but also against those claiming through him.
Based on the common ancestor's admission, supported by documentary evidence, the court concluded that children from void marriages should be treated as successors to Muthusamy Gounder. Consequently, the court determined that their shares in the property need to be calculated.
Citing Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court found that Muthusamy Gounder's statement, describing the appellants and respondents as his sons in a mortgage deed, along with joint patta and voters lists, amounted to an admission by record. The court held that the children from void marriages are part of the extended family of Muthusamy Gounder and are entitled to a share in the property.
In alignment with the precedent set in Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and others, which recognized the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages in their parents' property, the Supreme Court upheld the entitlement of such children in the common ancestor's property. The court set aside the judgments under appeal and passed a preliminary decree of partition, allocating equal shares to the children in the notionally partitioned share of Muthusamy Gounder. As a result, the appeals were allowed.