A child born out of a live-in relationship is not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property and can only claim a share in the parents' self-acquired property, if any, the Supreme Court has held.
Reiterating an earlier ruling, a vacation Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said: “In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages), the illegitimate children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.”
Judgment set aside
The Bench set aside a Madras High Court judgment, which held that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property as there was a presumption of marriage in view of the long relationship.
In the instant case, Rengammal claimed a live-in relationship with Muthu Reddiar and said her two children born out of this relationship were entitled to a share of his ancestral property.
The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, Bharatha Matha and another filed a suit against such a claim, and contended that Rengammal was a legally wedded wife of one Alagarsami Reddiar and there was no live-in relationship between her and Muthu Reddiar.
The trial court recorded a finding that Rengammal was the wife of Alagarsami Reddiar, who was alive at that time.
This decree was confirmed by the first appellate court. On second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings and held that her children were entitled to a share in Muthu Reddiar's ancestral property.
Allowing Bharatha Matha's appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said: “It is evident from the record that Muthu Reddiar did not partition his joint family properties and died issueless/intestate in 1974. Therefore, the question of inheritance of coparcenary property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in relationship, could not arise.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan noted that the High Court had re-appreciated the documentary evidence and taken a view contrary to the one taken by the two lower courts.
“It was not appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in second appeal as no substantial question of law was involved. Both courts below found that Rengammal was the legally wedded wife of Alagarsami”, the Bench said and set aside the impugned judgment.
