0

Raja Gounder Judgment: Supreme Court’s decision on Child’s Inheritance Rights.

Raja Gounder and Others v. M. Sengodan and Others.

Case No.: SLP(C) No. 13486 OF 2007.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. M.M. Sundresh, J. S.V.N. Bhatti.

Date: January 19, 2024.

Facts of the Case:

This case revolves around a dispute over the partition and separate possession of three agricultural lands held by the late Muthusamy Gounder. The plaintiffs claimed to be the son and wife, respectively, of Muthusamy Gounder and sought partition of the properties, asserting the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The defendants denied the marriage between Respondent 2 and Muthusamy Gounder, claiming that only Respondent 1 was a member of Muthusamy Gounder’s HUF. Subsequently, the appellants were impleaded, claiming to be the son, daughter, and wife of Muthusamy Gounder, respectively.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether a valid marriage existed between Muthusamy Gounder and Respondents 2 and the appellants’ mother, giving them the status of coparceners in the HUF?
  2. If the marriages were void or voidable, could the appellants and Respondent 1 still claim a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s property as his children?
  3. How should the relief be moulded if the appellants and Respondent 1 are entitled to a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s property?

Legal Provisions:

  1. Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (defining “admission” and “admission by party to proceeding or his agent”).
  2. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (conferring legitimacy on children born from void or voidable marriages).
  3. Sections 3(j), 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (provisions related to HUF, coparcenary property, and succession).

Arguments of the Petitioners (Appellants):

The appellants, represented by Advocate N.S. Nappinai, accepted the findings of the lower courts regarding the status of Respondents 2 and the appellants’ mother as not being wives of Muthusamy Gounder. However, they argued that the courts erred in not moulding the relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence.

The appellants relied on Exhibits B-3 to B-6, which included a registered mortgage deed, joint patta, and electoral rolls, to argue that Muthusamy Gounder treated the appellants and Respondent 1 as his sons. They contended that these documents constituted admissions under Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, binding Respondent 3, who claimed through Muthusamy Gounder.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, the appellants argued that even if the marriages were void or voidable, the children (appellants and Respondent 1) would be entitled to a share in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Advocate Vinodh Kanna B., representing Respondents 3 and 4, contended that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts did not warrant reconsideration of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution. Alternatively, he argued that the evidence was lacking to establish the status of the appellants and Respondent 1 as children of Muthusamy Gounder, which is a prerequisite for applying the ratio of Revanasiddappa. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

Judgment and Analysis:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts. The court analysed Exhibits B-3 to B-6 and concluded that they constituted admissions by Muthusamy Gounder regarding the status of the appellants and Respondent 1 as his sons under Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court relied on the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa and held that even if the marriages were void or voidable, the children (appellants and Respondent 1) would be entitled to equal shares in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The court criticized the lower courts for failing to mould the relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence, as the suit was for partition. It held that while the claim for partition as coparceners was unacceptable due to the lack of evidence on the factum of marriage, the lower courts should have considered the relief based on the admitted status of the appellants and respondent as Muthusamy Gounder’s children.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree of partition, firstly between Respondent 3 and Muthusamy Gounder, and secondly, allotting equal shares in Muthusamy Gounder’s notionally partitioned share to the appellants and the respondents.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principles laid down in Revanasiddappa regarding the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages to inherit their parents’ property. Secondly, it emphasizes the importance of examining and moulding relief based on the admitted circumstances and evidence, even if the original claim is not fully substantiated.

The court’s analysis of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act and the application of the concept of “admission” provide valuable guidance on the interpretation and application of these provisions.

Overall, this judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the rights of children and ensuring fair and equitable distribution of property, even in complex family disputes involving questions of legitimacy and succession.

 

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

“Legal Battle Unfolds: Supreme Court breaks silence on controversies surrounding forest land ownership, review jurisdiction, and title disputes”

Case Title: The State Of Telangana v. Mohd Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs 

Case No: SLP (C) No. 6937 of 2021 

Dated On: 18th April 2024 

Quorum: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

Mohd. Abdul Qasim (died) per LRs. was the respondent, and the petitioner was The State of Telangana & Ors. The case concerned Special Leave to Appeal about a final judgement and order that the High Court for the State of Telangana in Hyderabad had issued on March 19, 2021, which was the subject of an appeal. This case merely revolves around the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act,1967 (Hereinafter referred as ‘The Act’) 

 On April 13, 2023, the case was set for hearing before Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal.  The matter was postponed for a period of two weeks as a result of a letter from the respondent’s attorney requesting one.  

Between 1950-1959, a survey revision occurred in Kompally village. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, seeking rectification of survey errors. The suit land, spanning 106.34 acres, was subject to a notification (Gazette No. 85-B) by the State Government under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, declaring it reserved forest. Despite findings, neither the Forest Department nor the Forest Settlement Officer was involved. The Joint Collector later allowed the plaintiff’s application on 07.07.1981, but its benefit remained uncertain. 

Despite a categorical ruling that the suit property was forest land, an instrumentality of the State took different positions, which it eventually corrected by an affidavit submitted to this Court. Due to the respondents’ differing positions, the impugned decision was able to be given in their favour, overturning the concurrent judgements made by two lower courts based on an assessment of fact and law. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act was passed with the admirable goals of preserving, expanding, and safeguarding the forest cover. It also included a strong dispute resolution process to address any conflicts that may arise and designated certain areas as reserved forest.  

A Forest Settlement Officer is required by the A.P. Forest Act to be an officer of the Revenue Department, not lower than the level of Revenue Divisional Officer. A notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette allows the State government to designate land as a restricted forest. In order to highlight quasi-judicial capabilities, the Act purposefully avoids designating a forest department officer for this position. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellants strongly contended that the Forest Conservation Act defines a “forest” in an extensive manner, encompassing all types of forests. This broad definition would even include private forests within its scope. The implication here is that any land meeting the criteria laid out in the Act could be considered a forest, regardless of its ownership status.  

They emphasised that revenue records alone do not confer title to forest land. In other words, mere entries in official records do not automatically establish ownership. This contention underscores the need to look beyond administrative records and consider other factors when determining land ownership. They asserted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction during the review process. Instead of limiting itself to reviewing errors of law, it engaged in a re-hearing, almost functioning as an appellate court. Importantly, it was pointed out that the Respondents failed to establish their title to the disputed land. The High Court’s decision did not address this critical aspect.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The respondents vehemently assert that the proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer have attained finality. In other words, any decisions or determinations made during those proceedings should be considered conclusive. According to the respondents, once title is established, possession naturally follows.  

The respondents argue that the High Court’s review was justified. They contend that an error apparent on the face of the record existed, which warranted re-examination. This assertion challenges any perceived misuse of the review process. They emphasize that there was no attempt to obstruct or interfere with the ongoing proceedings. They also contend that there is no apparent perversity in the impugned order. In other words, the decision made by the court does not appear to be unreasonable or contrary to the evidence. By emphasizing this, they discourage any intervention by the higher court. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • S.2(f) of The AP Forest Act states the meaning of Forest Officer- “Forest officer” refers to any individual designated by the government or any officer with official authority. 
  • S.10 Claims to certain rights– In cases where the claims pertain to rights in or over land other than those listed below: way, water-course, or water-use rights; pasture rights; or forest produce rights; the Forest Settlement Officer will evaluate the specifics of the claim and, if any, the forest officer’s objections, issue an order either accepting or rejecting the claim in whole or in part and documenting the reasons for the decision.  
  • S.376 Of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Any person who feels wronged may request a review of a court decision for good cause or fresh information. 
  • Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for Application for review of judgment. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:  

The court held that this was a classic instance of state officials blatantly abdicating their duty to maintain and preserve the forests as part of their public duties. The court pronounced that they failed to see how the High Court could get involved by relying on evidence presented after the decree, at the request of a party that prevailed alongside the defendant in contest, especially considering that the land is forest land that has been designated as reserved forest.  

The court pointed out 2 instances, or rather, reasons for the lack of jurisdiction, viz,  

  • In relation to an effort to evade the ruling 
  • Acting without jurisdiction 

The court further held that because the plaintiff did not object to the proceedings in accordance with Section 15 of the A. P. Forest Act, the lawsuit is unmaintainable. These are now final and decisive.  

The Court concluded that Due to numerous factual and legal mistakes, the contested judgement is not upholdable under legal scrutiny and thereby, allowing the appeal. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”  

Judgment reviewed by- Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.