[Hindu Marriage Act] Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Can't Claim Share In Joint Family Property: Telangana High Court

Editor's Note: On September 1, the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun recognized the rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property. It held that children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents.

The Telangana High Court on August 28 had held that a child born out of a second marriage, a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot claim share in the ancestral property. Claim can only be made regarding the self-acquired property of parents.

“A plain reading of Section 16 of the Act would make it abundantly clear that the right conferred upon the illegitimate children is, only as regards the property left by their parents and nothing more. Section 16 of the Act, while engrafting a rule of fiction in ordaining the children, through illegitimate, to be treated as legitimate, notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable, chose also to confine its application, so far as succession or inheritance by such children is concerned, to the properties of the parents only.”

Justice M. G. Priyadarshani, while passing the judgment, referred to Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, Neelamma and Ors. v. Sarojamma and Ors. and Bharatha Matha and Anr. V. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors wherein the Apex Court has held that the claim of an illegitimate child with regards to section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be extended to Hindu Joint Family Property.

Reference was also made to the judgement passed by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Revannasiddappa and Another v. Mallikarjun and Others, relied on by the appellants wherein it was opined that illegitimate children are entitled to all property of their parents, whether self-acquired or ancestral. The Division bench went on to refer the matter to a larger bench.

Justice Priyadarshini observed, “Be that as it may, the reference by itself will not tie the hands of the Court in deciding the matters on the basis of the enunciation of law prevailing as on date.”

The appellants/plaintiffs are brothers and minor children being represented by their mother, who is the second wife of respondent no1/ defendant no1. Prior to the marriage with the mother of the appellants, the Respondent No. 1 had gotten married to another woman (defendant no3) and they had a daughter together. Even after marriage with the mother of the appellants, the Respondent no. 1 did not end his marriage with his first wife.

The appellants had filed the suit before the trial court for partition of the ancestral property of their father into 4 equal shares, including partition of the property their father had gifted to his first wife and daughter.

The respondents contended that as the children born out of a second marriage, which was a void marriage, were illegitimate children, they could not claim rights in the joint family property. This opinion was accepted by the Trial Court and the claim of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The trial court also observed that the father of the plaintiffs/appellants had gifted the property in favour of his first wife and daughter before the birth of the plaintiffs, and as such, they had no right over the said property.

The Bench concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and while dismissing the appeal held:

“The Trial Court, considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, more particularly, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and D.Ws.2 and 3, has rightly held that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendant No. 1. Thus, when the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the ancestral properties of defendant No. 1, they cannot question the execution of gift deeds...”

Counsel for petitioner: N Shoba

Counsel for respondent: P. Venugopal

Kumbam Ramana Prathap Reddy vs. Kumbam Jaihind Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order