Reference On 'Illegitimate Children's Right In Father's Ancestral Property' Pending For 11 Years : SC Directs Registry To Place Matter Before CJI
While considering a civil appeal, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that the reference on the issue of illegitimate children's right in father's ancestral property in the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 is still pending consideration of larger bench.Since there are now different Benches constituted to hear the reference matters, it may...
While considering a civil appeal, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that the reference on the issue of illegitimate children's right in father's ancestral property in the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 is still pending consideration of larger bench.
Since there are now different Benches constituted to hear the reference matters, it may be advisable to put a quietus to the issue so that the matters pending in this Court or in the High Courts can be dealt with, the bench also comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka said.
Opining that the reference is required to be listed at an early date, the bench directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India.
Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu Patil, who appeared for a party in the civil appeal, had brought to the notice of the bench that the matter is pending for 11 years and has an impact on many matters.
The Reference in 'Revanasiddappa'
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that any child of a marriage which is null and void under section 11, who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate. However, Section 16(3) provides that it shall not be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
In Bharatha Matha & another Vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan & others, AIR 2010 SC 2685 and Jinia Keotin Vs. Kumar Sitaram (2003) 1 SCC 730 , the Apex Court had taken a view that the children born out of the void marriage were not entitled to claim inheritance of the ancestral coparcenary property and were entitled to claim a share only in the self acquired property of their father.
In Revanasiddappa (supra), a two judges bench opined that such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral. Differing with the view taken by coordinate benches in above mentioned case, the matter was referred to three judges bench.
In March 2020, while considering a SLP that raised this issue, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph had called upon the Registrar to look into this issue so that the papers can be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench.