Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
A.S.No.242 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.242 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
1. Rajeswari
2. Padmanabhan …Appellants
Vs.
1. A.Lakshmi
2. India Gandhi
3. The Arani Town Co-operative Bank
Arani.
4. The Manager,
Indian Bank,
Arani.
5. The Branch Manager,
Lakshmi Villas Bank Ltd.,
Arani. …Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2010 in O.S.No.29 of 2005 on the file
of the learned District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr. R.Rajarajan
For Respondents
For R1 R2 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For R3 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasumdaram
For R4 R5 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit is filed as against the Judgment and Decree
dated 28.10.2010 made in O.S.No.29 of 2005 by the learned District
Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant got
married with one Ayyadurai Achari and the marriage was dissolved
between them. Thereafter, he got married the first plaintiff in the month
of Karthigai 1972 at Puthira Kametteeswarar Temple, Arani. Thereafter,
the first defendant was being his former wife, she was allowed to stay in
the same house. Due to the wed lock between the first plaintiff and the
said Ayyadurai Achari, they gave birth to the second plaintiff on
08.12.1973. Thereafter, the second plaintiff’s marriage was solemnized
by her father and the marriage invitation was printed in the joint names
of the said Ayyadurai Achari and the first plaintiff as parents of the
second plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
3.1. Therefore, the second defendant born through the first
defendant cannot be considered as legitimate son of the said Ayyadurai
Achari. Out of his earning, the said Ayyadurai Achari had purchased the
suit properties by the registered sale deeds dated 05.12.1991
26.12.1986. The entire suit properties were purchased by the said
Ayyadurai Achari out of his self earning and all the properties are self-
earned properties. During his life time, the said Ayyadurai Achari
constructed a marriage hall known as Rajalakshmi Ayyadurai Marriage
Hall, in which the marriage of the second plaintiff was solemnized.
Thereafter on 27.01.2005, the said Ayyadurai Achari died leaving behind
the plaintiffs and the defendants. After his demise, the second defendant
is appropriating the entire income from the suit properties. When the
plaintiffs made demand to the defendants to pay their equal share in the
suit properties, the same was refused as such, the plaintiffs filed suit for
partition.
4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement
stating that the first defendant alone legally wedded wife of the said
Ayyadurai Achari and the second defendant is only the legitimate son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
the said Ayyadurai Achari. the plaintiffs have no right to file suit for
partition and hence the entire claim is not legally sustainable. Further
stated that the said Ayyadurai Achari is running welding shop under the
name and style of Rajeswari Nillayam. If the first defendant had been
divorced, he would not run his shop in the name of the first defendant
viz., Rajeswari. There was no necessity for the said Ayyadurai Achari to
marry the first plaintiff that too in the temple. In fact, he owned Kalyana
Mandapam, as such there was no marriage between the first plaintiff and
the said Ayyadurai Achari. It is true that the said Ayyadurai Achari got
married the first defendant and there is absolutely no iota of evidence to
show that the said Ayyadurai Achari and the first defendant got divorce.
Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit and they are not
entitled for any share in the suit properties.
5. On hearing the rival pleadings, the learned trial Judge
framed the following issues for determination of the suit :-
“(i) Whether it is true that 1st plaintiff is the
legally wedded wife of Ayyadurai Achari?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3
shares in the suit properties as prayed for?
(iii) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013bound to render account for the plaintiffs income
from their share in 1 to 3 of the suit properties
from the date of plaintiff till delivery of the
plaintiffs 2/3 share in those properties?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(v) To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled
to?”
6. On the side of the plaintiffs, they examined P.W.1 P.W.2
and marked 40 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.40. On the side of the
defendants, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and no documents were
marked. On perusal of the material produced on record and considering
both the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective
parties and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either
side, the trial Court partly allowed the suit thereby alloted 1/3 share in
the properties in favour of the second plaintiff alone and 1/3 share
alloted in favour of the defendants 1 2 each. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendants 1 2 preferred this appeal suit.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
submitted that the plaintiffs failed to establish the factum of marriage
alleged to have been held between the deceased Ayyadurai Achari and
the first plaintiff and as such the second plaintiff is not entitled to have
any share as contemplated under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The plaintiffs also failed to prove the factum of alleged divorce between
the deceased Ayyadurai Achari and the first defendant herein. Therefore,
the Court below wrongly invoked Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act
that too after holding that the marriage between the first plaintiff and the
deceased Ayyadurai Achari not held to be proved by the evidence
adduced on the side of the plaintiffs, the presumption could have been
drawn only when the evidence is not forthcoming. Once the marriage
held has not been proved, the benefit under Section 114 of India
Evidence Act cannot be availed in favour of the plaintiffs.
7.1. He further submitted that under Section 16 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, if the factum of marriage proved, the children can claim
the benefit, who born out of the said wed lock. Whereas in the case on
hand, the factum of marriage itself failed to prove by the plaintiffs and as
such granting the benefits under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
not applicable to the plaintiffs. In support of his contention, he relied
upon the following reported judgments :-
(i) 2011 (5) MLJ 86 – Dhanalakshmi v. S.Prabhavathy
and Others
(ii) 2015 (4) LW 509 – Baby @ Rohini (Deceased) and
others vs. Kamalam Kumerasan and others
8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
1 2/plaintiffs submitted that the case of the plaintiffs is that the one
Ayyadurai Achari originally got married with the first defendant. After
dissolution of marriage, he got married with the first plaintiff and gave
birth to the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff marriage was
solemnized by the said Ayyadurai Achari. The marriage invitation was
printed in the joint names of the said Ayyadurai Achari with the first
plaintiff as parents of the second plaintiff. In fact, the marriage was
solemnized in R.L.A.Marriage hall, which was owned by the said
Ayyadurai Achari. Though the first defendant got divorce with the said
Ayyadurai Achari, she was permitted to stay under the same roof, due to
which she gave birth to the second defendant on 12.06.1976. Whereas
the second plaintiff was born on 08.12.1973 itself, in Arani Government
Hospital. Therefore, the second defendant cannot be considered as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013legitimate son of the said Ayyadurai Achari. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs
failed to prove the dissolution of marriage between the said Ayyadurai
Achari and the first defendant as such, the trial Court had drawn a
presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and allotted
1/3th share to the second plaintiff.
8.1. He further submitted that it is the categorical evidence of the
first plaintiff that all the plaintiffs and the defendants were living under
the same roof. That apart, the first plaintiff lived with the said Ayyadurai
Achari as wife, in his life time in long cohabitation with each other and
gave birth to the second plaintiff. Though the plaintiffs failed to prove
the marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Ayyadurai
Achari, they lived cohabitants each other as husband and wife and the
second plaintiff was born to them. Therefore, it may presume as they
married. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
reported judgments:-
(i) 2019 (11) SCC 491 – Kamala Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar
(ii) 2002 (4) LW 783 – A. Murugesan vs. Angamuthu Gounder
and Ors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
9. Heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 2 and Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent.
10. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 2005 for partition.
According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff got married the late
Ayyadurai Achari at Puthira Kametteeswarar Temple, Arani, in the month
of Karthigai, 1972. The marriage between the late Ayyadurai Achari and
the first defendant was dissolved and thereafter the late Ayyadurai Achari
got married with the first plaintiff. Due to their wedlock, they gave birth
to the second plaintiff. The late Ayyadurai Achari also permitted the first
defendant to live with the same house. Due to which, the second
defendant was born through the first defendant. During his life time, the
late Ayyadurai Achari purchased the suit properties. He died on
27.01.2005, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal
heirs. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for their respective shares in the
suit properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
11. Though the plaintiffs averred that the marriage between the
late Ayyadurai Achari and the first defendant got dissolved, they failed to
prove the same by adducing evidence. Therefore, the Court below
concluded that the marriage between the late Ayyadurai Achari and the
first defendant was not dissolved and the first defendant remains to be a
legally wedded wife of the said late Ayyadurai Achari and alleged
marriage between the late Ayyadurai Achari and the first plaintiff has not
been proved in the manner known to law.
12. Therefore, the points for consideration in this appeal is that
whether Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable, when the
marriage is not proved between the late Ayyadurai Achari and the first
plaintiff?
13. As stated supra, the plaintiffs failed to prove the dissolution
of marriage between the first defendant and the late Ayyadurai Achari.
But it doesn’t mean that the marriage between the late Ayyadurai Achari
and the first plaintiff is not proved. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the
defendants were living under the same roof with the late Ayyadurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
Achari till his death viz., 27.01.2005. Therefore, continuous cohabitation
of late Ayyadurai Achari and the first plaintiff for number of years raised
the presumption of marriage. Therefore, under Section 16 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the second plaintiff is entitled to have her share in the suit
properties.
14. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (5) MLJ 86 in the
case of Dhanalakshmi v. S.Prabhavathy and Others, as follows :-
“18. No doubt, there are certain documents
which would also exemplify and demonstrate that
Varadarajulu during his lifetime described
Ranganayaki as his wife, but both the Courts
below negatived the contention of Ranganayaki
and her children and held that they are not the
legitimate heirs of deceased Varadarajulu as
against which they have not chosen to prefer any
objection or appeal and as such this Court need
not ponder over those documents. There is no iota
or shred, shard or miniscule, pint of jot of
evidence available on the side of D11 to
demonstrate that Krishnabai was ever referred to
by Varadarajulu as his wife even though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 11 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013Krishnabai claims to have lived with him for four
decades or so. The reliance placed on the Birth
Certificates undoubtedly refer to the parents of
those children as Krishnabai and Varadarajulu.
Simply because the children were born to them, it
cannot be presumed that there was legitimate
relationship between the two and that that too in
the wake of specific allegation by the plaintiff, D1
and D2 that Krishnabai was already married to
Andi Munusamy and one of the children was born
to Krishnabai through Andi Munusamy and the
remaining children were born of Varadarajulu.
Any children born out of adulterous relationship
cannot be treated as the ones eligible to invoke
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Over and
above that, I would like to refermoment I even
thought of referring to the old Hindu Law which
would contemplate that even an illegitimate child
born out of a kept mistress or concubine could
also be taken as one entitled to a small moiety
along with the legitimate child. But in this case,
Varadarajulu died only in the year 1983 long
after the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act
as well as Hindu Succession Act and once
codified new law in the form of Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act started occupying the filed,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 12 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
the question of invoking the contrary old Hindu
Law does not arise. In such an event also I would
like to point out that no where in the old Hindu
law it is found envisaged that a child born out of
adulterous connection would be entitled for a
share in the self acquired property of its Hindu
father. The first appellate Court in paragraph
Nos.23 and 24 of its judgment clearly dealt with
those points, so to say au fait with the correct
proposition of law the dispute was decided
warranting no interference in the Second Appeal.
With a fine-toothed comb, the matter does not
warrant it to be combed as already such exercise
was properly performed by the first appellate
court”
In the above judgment, this Court held that there is no iota of evidence is
available on the side of the plaintiffs to show their marriage. Simply
because of the children were born to them, it was not presumed that there
was a legitimate relationship between the two. After the commencement
of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Hindu Succession Act, once
codified new law in the form of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act
started occupying the filed, the question of invoking the contrary old
Hindu Law does not arise. No where in the old Hindu law, a child born
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 13 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
out of adulterous connection would be entitled for a share in the self
acquired property of its Hindu father.
15. In the case on hand, as stated supra the plaintiffs failed to
prove the divorce between the first defendant and the late Ayyadurai
Achari. Whereas, P.W.1 categorically stated that she got married
Ayyadurai Achari in the month of Karthigai in the year 1972 at Puthira
Kametteeswarar Temple, Arani. Admittedly, the late Ayyadurai Achari
and the first plaintiff lived as husband and wife continuously and their
continuous cohabitation as husband and wife, raised the presumption of
marriage. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants are not helpful to the case on hand.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 12
relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 (11) SCC 491 in the case of
Kamala Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held as follows :-
“16. It is fairly well settled that the law
presumes in favour of marriage and against
concubinage when a man and woman havehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 14 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013cohabited continuously for a number of years.
After referring to various judgments, in
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha
(2011) 1 SCC 141, this Court held as under:-
“11. Again, in Sastry Velaider Aronegary v.
Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881) 6 AC 364, it was held
that where a man and woman are proved to have
lived together as man and wife, the law will
presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved,
that they were living together in consequence of a
valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage.
12. In India, the same principles have been
followed in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v.
Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy AIR
1927 PC 185, in which the Privy Council laid
down the general proposition that where a man
and woman are proved to have lived together as
man and wife, the law will presume, unless, the
contrary is clearly proved, that they were living
together in consequence of a valid marriage, and
not in a state of concubinage.
Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 PC 135 the Privy
Council has laid down that the law presumes in
favour of marriage and against concubinage
when a man and woman have cohabited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 15 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
continuously for number of years.
14. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR
1952 SC 231, this Court held that continuous
cohabitation of man and woman as husband and
wife may raise the presumption of marriage, but
the presumption which may be drawn from long
cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are
circumstances which weaken and destroy that
presumption, the Court cannot ignore them.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in various judgments that
continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife may
raise the presumption of marriage.
17. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on
hand. P.W.1 and D.W.1 categorically stated that they were lived under the
same roof. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 revealed that the second plaintiff was born
on 05.06.1973, to the late Ayyadurai Achari and the first plaintiff. On
attainment of puberty, the second plaintiff’s function was conducted by
her father viz., the late Ayyadurai Achari and her marriage was also
solemnized on 11.6.1997 at R.L.A. Marriage Hall, i.e., one of the suit
properties. Therefore, the Court below rightly allowed the suit in part and
allotted 1/3rd share in the suit properties to the second plaintiff and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 16 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
defendants 1 2 each. Therefore, this Court doesn’t find any infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
18. In the result, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
09.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The District Judge,
Thiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 17 of 18
A.S.No.242 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
A.S.No.242 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 18 of 18