Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1
Easy English explainer for classroom and exam prep.
Quick Summary
The case asks: do children from a void marriage get a share in coparcenary property or only in the property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act? The Trial Court accepted the first wife’s claim to partition. The High Court (first appeal) treated children from the void marriage on par with coparceners, giving equal shares. On second appeal, the High Court limited such children to the parents’ property only. The Supreme Court did not give a final answer. It sent the question to a larger Bench for an authoritative ruling.
Issues
- Are children from a void marriage entitled to coparcenary rights or only to the property of their parents under Section 16(3) HMA?
Rules
Section 16(3) HMA (as amended): Children from a void marriage are legitimate for certain purposes and can inherit from their parents. The debated limit is: Is their right confined only to the parents’ property, or does it extend to coparcenary/ancestral property that becomes the parent’s property?
Facts (Timeline)
The first defendant had two wives: third plaintiff (first wife) and fourth defendant (second wife).
Children: from first wife — first & second plaintiffs; from second wife — second & third defendants.
The suit sought partition and separate possession of ancestral property granted to the first defendant, claiming 1/4th each for the plaintiffs.
Trial Court: second marriage void (first marriage subsisting). First wife legally wedded; partition claim maintainable.
First appeal (High Court): children of the void marriage treated at par with coparceners; equal 1/6th shares among plaintiffs and defendants 1–3.
Second appeal (High Court): limited rights under Section 16(3) to parents’ property only; plaintiffs 1 & 2 and first defendant to get 1/3rd each; others’ claims rejected.
Arguments
Appellants / Plaintiffs (First wife & children)
- Second marriage void; first wife entitled to partition.
- Children from void marriage should not reduce first wife’s and her children’s shares.
- Ancestral grant belongs within joint family; shares to be calculated accordingly.
Respondents (Second wife & children)
- By Section 16, status of children is protected despite void marriage.
- They should be treated like coparceners where the parent holds ancestral property.
- Equitable approach: no stigma-based exclusion from joint family assets.
Judgment
The Supreme Court of India did not deliver a final ruling on the property-rights question. Considering the importance of the issue and differing views, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench for reconsideration.
Ratio
No final ratio decidendi from the Supreme Court in this order. The central interpretive question is whether Section 16(3) limits inheritance strictly to the parents’ property, or includes coparcenary/ancestral interests that become the parent’s property. The answer was reserved for a larger Bench.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the reach of Section 16(3) HMA for children from void marriages.
- Impacts partition suits and shares in joint family property.
- Guides courts on balancing statutory text with fairness to affected children.
Key Takeaways
- Section 16(3) protects children’s rights to their parents’ property.
- Whether this includes coparcenary shares remains a larger Bench question.
- Lower courts in the case took opposite views, showing the interpretive tension.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Void ≠ Voided Rights.”
- Void marriage, but child’s status gets protection.
- Parents’ Property is the statutory core.
- Coparcenary? Final word awaited from larger Bench.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Do children from a void marriage inherit only their parents’ property, or also coparcenary interests?
Rule
Section 16(3) HMA confers rights in the property of the parents. The extent of that phrase is disputed.
Application
Lower courts differed: one treated such children as coparceners; another confined them to parents’ property only.
Conclusion
Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger Bench; final legal position reserved.
Glossary
- Void Marriage
- A marriage with no legal effect from the start (e.g., second marriage during subsisting first marriage).
- Coparcenary
- A narrow group in a Hindu joint family with birth-based interest in ancestral property.
- Section 16 HMA
- Protects status and certain property rights of children from void/voidable marriages.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now